Monthly Archives: January 2025

Local History

Aiken Gets Water: A 19th Century History

6 Comments

Like other 19th century American towns, Aiken’s population growth drove the need for a municipal waterworks. The difficulty was finding adequate water in a town renowned for its dryness.


By Jeff Dexter

In the Beginning

In the early 1830s, a tiny town was created at a crossroads in the wilderness of western South Carolina. As history would have it, it was one of the first, if not the first town in the country created specifically for purposes of the railroad. Another historical first was the railroad that was routed through that town — the South Carolina Canal & Rail Road, which ran from Charleston to Hamburg. At 136 miles in length, it was, at the time, the longest rail line in the world. In 1835 that tiny town in the wilderness was incorporated and named Aiken after the president of that railroad, William Aiken. 

Unlike most 19th century towns, which were sited along rivers and other waterways, it was the lack of water that put Aiken on the map. The route of the rail line across the state was carefully chosen to avoid rivers, streams, and swamps wherever possible. Located high on a sandy ridge between the Savannah and Edisto Rivers, its elevation relatively high in the surrounding landscape, the site of Aiken perfectly fit this specification; it had very little water.

ABOVE: Aiken County, State of South Carolina, geological & agricultural map, compiled from railroad, coast & state surveys by Williams & Chism. Circa 1870.

In fact, during Aiken’s infancy, the town had only one reliable source of pure, clean water– a small spring, Coker Spring, located over half a mile south of the business district. 

Coker Spring

The history of Coker Spring is as colorful as it is long. Pottery relics found at the site during a 20th century restoration effort showed that the spring had been used for thousands of years by native people. During the 1700s, the spring served as a stagecoach stop. In the 1840s, the site was acquired by a Charleston attorney, who deeded the spring to the people of Aiken, who relied on the spring’s water for drinking, cooking, cleaning, bathing, laundry, and watering cattle, mules and horses. Bath houses, laundry camps, and a soap-making concern were established at the site.

April 1874 advertisement for Coker Spring Grove posted in The Aiken Journal.

The site — a picturesque valley with large oak trees, pines and kalmia — was also a favorite area for picnics and parties. In the 1860s, the Coker Spring would serve as a camp for Civil War troops. From 1874-1875, the area was opened as a park by a private interest, who built a pavilion and bath house, called Coker Spring Grove, for picnics, parties and dancing.

In 1875, a violent storm system that spun tornadoes and a path of death and destruction from Galveston, Texas to Florence, SC passed through the Coker Spring area, reportedly felling nearly every tree in the valley. 

The spring endured, however, continuing to serve as Aiken’s primary source for clean water. Those with the means —ox cart, barrels, buckets and time — could go down, collect the water and haul it back. The spring’s modest supply, (5 gallons per minute on a good day), sufficed, to a point. The town was growing.

Since the beginning, the same dry climate that had drawn the railroad to Aiken also drew visitors from the Low Country seeking escape from the heat, humidity and malaria. As word spread of its exceedingly dry air and relatively cooler temps — and the healthful benefits of this climate — Aiken became established as a health resort. For the duration of the 19th century, the town’s reputation spread far and wide to all points on the map, drawing, as well, a population of Winter Colony residents who built large mansions and estates. By the 1870s-1880s, the demand for water was exceeding what Coker Spring could supply. Aiken needed a better solution. Aiken needed water. 

The Early Systems of Cisterns and Wells

Those with the means to do so built 6 to 7-foot diameter underground brick-and-mortar vessels, called cisterns, to capture rainwater. A system of gutters and downspouts transported the rainwater from their roofs into the sealed chambers of the cistern. Most times, but not always, the water would be, first, routed through a barrel of sand or charcoal for filtration before reaching its final destination.

The level of filtration was driven by the intended uses of the water — drinking, cooking, bathing, cleaning, laundry, gardens and/or fire suppression. Various methods of heat and chemical sterilization were also used to make water suitable for drinking. In addition, cisterns required regular inspection and cleaning to prevent the accumulation of dirt, debris and sediment within. Contamination and pollution were always a risk. Newspaper accounts of that era attested to the hazards of drinking unclean water.

ABOVE: Account from the Aiken Journal and Review, June 10, 1885.

Those without the means to construct a complicated home cistern system congregated at the wells that the city leaders had provided at the intersection of certain city streets to draw their water. City wells were similar to those often see often seen in fairytale books, with the quaint little roof sheltering a hand crank that would lower a rope with a small bucket tied to it to collect the water.

“Aiken Water Works.”1 Photograph by J.A. Palmer. Handwritten note reads, “What looks like snow is white sand all the streets are the same.” The belfry of St. Thaddeus Church is visible in the background, suggesting a Greenville Street location for this well.

Due to Aiken’s relatively high elevation and the depth of the sandy plateau on which the it rested, wells had to be dug deep — upwards of 100-150 feet— which made for a laborious effort by the hand-digging methods of the day. Once finished, it was no small effort to crank that rope up and down to collect even the smallest amount of water. City wells were prone, as were the residential cisterns, to contamination by unwanted animal and mineral elements. Aiken surely did need water. 

“View of the principle street at Aiken” from Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, May 22, 1869. Illustration of Laurens Street viewed from the intersection of Richland Avenue. Note the women in the foreground, right, carrying water from the well, its lattice siding partially visible at the right edge or the photo. A second well is visible in front of the 2-story City Hall building which stands in the middle of Laurens Street near the intersection with Hayne.

Meanwhile, there was the specter of fires. With the reliance on fire for lighting, cooking, heating, and so many other daily tasks, accidents were bound to occur. Structure fires consumed houses, churches and businesses . The great fire of 1839 burned down the entire Laurens Street business district, save one store on the corner of Park Avenue and Laurens. Another major fire destroyed much of the downtown area in the 1880s. The first Platt’s Drug Store fire occurred in 1886.

City leaders did their best at the time, constructing giant 15,000 and 65,000 gallon cisterns in the middle of Laurens Street. A 30,000 gallon cistern was later added at the junction of York and Richland Avenue. These cisterns served only the immediate areas in which they were located, providing water for the steam and hand-pump fire engines of the time. Vulnerabilities to this system were droughts, freezing, and the limitations of hose length.

The aqua circles on Laurens Street in this May 1884 Sanborn Fire Insurance map indicate wells and cisterns. Click image for larger view.

The lack of adequate water supplies for fire suppression was causing fire insurance rates to balloon to the point where some merchants struggled to stay in business. Water! Then would come the inevitable question— but, from where?


The Water Question

Every year or two, the “water question” would arise in the town council meetings. In those meetings, the same complaints could be heard over and over again. 

  • The town cisterns are in need of cleaning.
  • The wells around town are silted, the water impure and simply abominable. “
  • The old oaken bucket may be dear to some, but there is no poetry in one hung at the end of a 160-foot rope. 
  • Do you ever wonder what becomes of the filth (trash and animal waste) that is scattered over the surface of our city?

 Adding insult to injury, certain scallywags sometimes delighted in cutting the ropes to the wells. Aiken was promoting itself as the preeminent healthful destination for invalids to recover from debilitating diseases. This could hardly coexist with a water supply vulnerable to typhoid fever, cholera, and other water-borne diseases.

Could the water from the old reliable Coker Spring and one or two other smaller springs beyond be collected in some kind of cistern or reservoir? Nope, that supply was inadequate. Could the water from Good Springs, five miles northwest of town be tapped? Nope, too far away. With no electricity for pumps at that time, this option was an impossibility. But, wait! Charleston had achieved great success in obtaining water by means of the artesian well– a well bored deep into the aquifer below, tapping into water that is under pressure, such that it rises to, or near to the surface. Could something like that work here in Aiken? Did that water even exist below our town? It promised to be an expensive venture, potentially resulting in a grand boondoggle with nothing to show for the effort but odd-tasting sulfur or mineral water, unsuitable for use.

Aiken Takes Action

With no guarantee of a successful outcome, the Town Council initiated the first step in the process, petitioning the SC General Assembly for permission to establish a city-wide waterworks system. In late December of 1891, the SC General Assembly passed an act authorizing the Aiken Council to construct a waterworks, pending passage of the act by the qualified voters of Aiken. That election was held in April 1892 at the fire engine house below town hall in the middle of Laurens Street. The final results– Yes- 149, No- 40, those described as “Scattering”- 13.

The Council sought the advice of various contractors. One by the name of Mr. Baum examined the city and advised that artesian water could be easily had at a very low cost. Skeptical city leaders were not sold, and instead, chose the services of Mr. Eugene F. Fuller of Orange, New Jersey. Council then worked to craft an ordinance, passed in August of 1892, that outlined the work to be done, going even so far as to specify the individual costs for customers to tap into this system. Mr. Fuller was charged with locating the water from some unspecified source — a well? a spring? a running stream? Some speculated that he might draw on Sand River where it reemerged at the rear of Mr. Cuthbert’s Hill in what would later become Hitchcock Woods.

Once he attained a water source, Fuller was to lay out and install the water mains throughout the city. He would then operate the entire system, collecting water rates from customers for a period of 30 years. Construction of the waterworks was mandated to start within sixty days after acceptance of the contract with Fuller, and to be completed within four months. 

The Fuller Fail

In September 1892, Mr. Fuller visited Aiken to solidify the contract and participate with other Aiken businessmen in establishing his Aiken Waterworks Company. He also ordered the standpipe– a massive 180,000 gallon, 16-foot diameter by 120-foot tower that would hold the water pumped from the yet-defined source. Gravity would pressure water from the standpipe to the upper stories of any house or building in town. In January 1893, the unassembled pieces of the standpipe were delivered to the freight depot at Park Avenue and Williamsburg Street. Two months later, the pieces were still lying in wait at the depot. With ground yet to be broken on the waterworks, and Mr Fuller vague on his plans to return to town, public concerns grew vocal.. Arrangements were made to haul the standpipe by mule and dump it the middle of Newberry Street.

The turn of events led citizens to re-visit the terms of the ordinance passed the prior summer. The source for the water had yet to be named, which left open the questions on water purity and adequate supply. Would this new source be as vulnerable to the whims of weather as cisterns? And was the City wise to put the town’s waterwork in the hands of private interests, whose motives for profit might override concerns of water quality? Opposition to the Fuller plan took root and was expressed through petitions signed by hundreds and brought before Council. By April 1893, with Mr. Fuller in default with his contract, the City began the process of cancelling his contract. Come July 1893, Mr. Fuller’s tools and machinery were sold off in a Sheriff’s sale. 

The Artesian Option

In early March 1893, even before Mr. Fuller had been banished from the project, a citizen water committee was formed. They petitioned for $2,500 from the city to test and explore the possibility of obtaining an artesian well. From the beginning, the artesian option was seen as an experimental venture, its outcome unknown.

That same month, the water committee re-contacted the contractor that had, a year earlier, given such a rosy estimate of the artesian water that coursed below the surface of Aiken — Mr. Baum of the Andrews & Baum firm of Atlanta, Georgia. Fortunately, Baum was familiar with the town, having visited previously. He formulated a plan and quickly provided a bid to bore a well that was very favorable to city leaders.

His partner, Perry Andrews, would perform the work using local laborers, supplying the equipment and well casing at no cost to the city. There would be no charge for the first 500 feet of depth if no water was reached. There was no doubt that it would be a very risky venture, but Council quickly jumped on this proposal and rewrote the waterworks ordinance.

The method chosen for sinking the well was a cable-tool drilling rig — a method developed in China 4,000 years prior — which necessitated hanging a large chisel from a rope tied to a teeter-totter-type device. A group of men would then jump on and off of the teeter-totter to move the chisel up and down to cut downward into the earth.

Andrews would, instead, use a steam-powered engine to work the teeter-totter– no jumping men would be needed. With the anticipated drilling depth to be over 500 feet, it was going to be a very slow process. 

On May 10, 1893, Mr. Baum was called to Aiken to iron out the final details to city leaders. He reassured that rushing tides of health-giving water were right beneath the town. On May 17, the contract was signed and sealed. The standpipe would be located at the highest point in the town limits– Edgefield Street and Laurens (between what is now the post office and the former public safety building). The well would be located at the intersection of  Laurens Street and Park Avenue.

Everything seemed set until a large group of citizens vehemently objected to the litter and smoke that would be generated by the well-drilling; the ungainliness. This would not be an ornament to the intersection of Aiken’s two principal thoroughfares. It was decided to, instead, locate an ornamental fountain at the intersection of Laurens and Park, and to site the well in the middle of Newberry Street at the intersection with Curve Street (the Alley).


The Experiment Begins

At the end of May, Perry Andrews arrived in town to begin the process. Workmen erected a 45-foot derrick over the boring site to assist in lifting the giant 1,000 lb. chisel in and out of the well. Winches and engines were put in place, and well-casing pipes were gathered. On June 7, 1893, the boring began, much to the amazement of the large crowds of townsfolk who looked on. Advocates of the artesian option were noticeably nervous. It was such a big gamble, and now, there was no turning back– the great experiment had begun.


The ‘Man About Town” section of the Aiken Journal and Review tracked the progress, reporting in 6/14/1893 the reactions Aiken citizens. “Daily conventions at the site have not by any means been made up wholly of street urchins, gamins, and idlers. Every citizen contrives to take a squint at the processes going on whenever a leisure moment is spared him. The most pronounced advocates make it a daily habit to briefly visit and keenly watch the progress of the boring. Even the ladies are sometimes seen to steal softly and airily in the afternoon after the workmen have quit and flutter animatedly about the scene for a while and then lightly to fly away.”

Further, the Man About Town stated, “All watched as the baler would draw up the results of the dig– rich red clay, sand, terra cotta, a tough stratum of marl, a 15-foot thick layer of kaolin, then coarse, loose sand…. Mr. Andrews was making his slow progress downward toward the coveted goal of reaching bedrock, beyond which would, hopefully, be flowing rivers of pure, healthful artesian water.” 

Aiken Gets Water

Summer brought a series of equipment failures and delays. In late June, the gearing on the winch that raised and lowered the giant chisel had to be replaced. In August, at 325 feet of depth, the chisel hit a seemingly endless layer of quicksand, filling the hole as quickly as it was bored. This required a weeks-long process of removing and replacing the well casing.

Finally, at the end of September, the chisel hit bedrock at 485 feet. Andrews forged ahead, the goal being to reach a point of strong pressure to send a sufficient flow of water to the surface, Near the end of October, a vein of water was reached at a depth of 545 feet. Drilling continued, and at 565 feet, another vein was struck. Continuing, yet another vein was struck. Water certainly did not rush to the surface of the ground as artesian wells are supposed to do, but the level did push up to about 170 feet below the surface. Mr. Andrews continued his drilling in hopes of increasing the supply already there.

In mid-December 1893, he finally pulled his chisel out for the last time. At a depth of 700 feet, he had attained an estimated flow of 200,000 gallons per day. Still no water geyser in evidence but, eh, close enough. “Water, water everywhere, and plenty of it to drink!” Proclaimed the Aiken Journal and Review.

Now What?

At the start of 1894, there were no pipes, pumps or hydrants, etc. to deliver the water throughout the town. Citizens were urged to stop drinking from the old wells and cisterns and to, instead, bring their buckets and barrels to the artesian well site on Newberry Street. Within a year, however, nearly five miles of water mains had been completed, mostly in the east/west Florence to Fairfield Street and north/south Edgefield to Colleton Street area. It would be another 70 years before the poor sections of town would receive service.

By early 1896, there were 200 residential and business customers attached to the system, using a collective 40,000 gallons per day. Many were installing newly-built rooms onto their houses, replacing the water pitcher and bowl from the bedroom dresser with a sink and a bathtub into this new room, which they called a “bathroom.” Some households also replaced the bedpan and the outhouse with one of the new-fangled flush toilets.

Kitchen were also outfitted with sinks, making trips to the hand-pump and the well obsolete. With the newly invented devices of lawn mower and sprinkler, growing a lush rye grass lawn was now possible. Water was also available for watering gardens, horses and livestock. For awhile, the issues of water supply seemed a thing of the past.

Within the first few years, however, water-wasting became an issue, as household and business usage alarmingly exceeded original usage estimates. Meters would be needed to monitor usage. Another unanticipated cost was the specialized labor necessary to operating the system’s steam engines, pumps and other mechanics. Stirred into this were ongoing equipment breakdowns, operator mishaps, and system malfunctions. All of this equated to rising costs, which meant higher fees and taxes.

While Aiken’s artesian well project may not have been a boondoggle, it ultimately proved to be a costly, labor-intensive way of getting water. Within 15 years, a new system would be installed at Shiloh Springs.

First, however, was the matter of those 40,000 gallons of artesian well water being used every day. What to do with all of that waste water being created? Aiken now needed a sewage system!

___________________

  1. The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Photography Collection, The New York Public Library. “Aiken Water works.” The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1870 – 1879. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e1-af16-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99

Feature photo: Child taking a drink of water at Coker Spring in Aiken.
Retrograph Co., Germany, 1904.
(Note the location was erroneously cited as “Cocoa Springs” on the postcard).

Aiken County, Development Issues, Elections

Local Politics and Planning in 2025

Leave a comment

A County Comprensive Plan, A City Zoning Ordinance, Another Downtown Aiken Redevelopment Decision and Debate, and City Elections

by Don Moniak
January 10, 2025

Several major developments and events are on 2025’s local political docket. Notable among them are the preparation of a new 10-year Aiken County Comprehensive Plan, the rewrite of City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance, the selection of a buyer and developer of the remaining six Project Pascalis properties downtown Aiken, and municipal elections.

Figure 1. Comprehensive Plan interactive map for public comments. The site is being populated
with recommendations for new parks, transit routes, pedestrian and bicycle routes, requests for
amenities such as grocery stores, concerns over the proliferation of dollar stores, and numerous
other issues.


Aiken County’s 2025-2035 Comprehensive Plan

As described in The Resiliency Element, Aiken County is required by state law to develop a Comprehensive Plan that serves as a guiding document for future development of unincorporated portions of the county. 

The existing 2014-2024 Comprehensive Plan, which was only an amendment to the 2004-2014 plan, has passed its expiration date; but it will have to suffice until a new one is completed. In practice, the current plan did not go into effect until January 2016; it was passed in December 2015 following a one-year public comment period.

The Aiken County Planning Commission (ACPC) is more than half a year behind schedule on preparing the 2025-2035 plan that will, in its words, provide “a framework for how the County will change, through public and private investment, in the next two decades.  The comprehensive planning process provides residents, property owners, merchants, industry, builders and developers a reasonable forecast of the county’s future. The plan is long-range and seeks to address the County’s future needs for housing, economic development, recreation and cultural resources, and transportation facilities. The plan seeks to balance the desire for growth and development with protection and preservation of the County’s unique natural resources.”

Up until the first of this year, there had been no solicitation of citizen input, even though the issue first ended up on the ACPC’s May 2024 agenda—albeit without the required public notice. At County Council’s December 19, 2024 public meeting and the following ACPC meeting on December 21st, a schedule for four public involvement meetings*, as well as a two month public comment period, was announced.

Soon after the public meetings announcement, a Comprehensive Plan website was finally created. The site contains a link to an interactive map (Figure 1) for making specific comments and a general email address, planning@aikencountysc.gov, as an alternative. There is also a community survey with sixteen questions. The comment period runs through February 28, 2025.

So far, a Demographic and Economic Inventory Report and a Market Analysis Report are also available for review and comments.

*The public information sessions are scheduled as follows.

Public Information Session #1
January 14, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Roy Warner Park
6021 Roy Warner Park Ln, Wagener, SC 29164

Public Information Session #2
January 22, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Aiken Senior Life Services
1310 E Pine Log Rd, Aiken, SC 29803

Public Information Session #3
January 27, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Gregg Park Civic Center
1001 A Avenue, Graniteville, SC 29829

Public Information Session #4
January 28, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
North Augusta Community Center
495 Brookside Ave, North Augusta, SC 29841

(At present, no information sessions are scheduled for the more rural areas that surround Silver Bluff and Ridge Spring-Monetta High Schools; while two of the meetings are within incorporated portions of the county. Nor are any daytime sessions or weekend sessions planned.)

Figure 2. Initial schedule for rewrite of the City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance, as explained during
a July 9, 2024 City Council work session. The consulting firm leading the effort has promised
extensive citizen involvement at all phases of the process through a community communications campaign.


City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance/Unified Development Ordinance

The current City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance dates back to 1999. Although numerous amendments such a “tree preservation ordinance” have been incorporated since that time, it is a dated Ordinance with substantial flaws. Unlike a Comprehensive Plan, this is a legally binding document–although one with numerous loopholes such as very wide discretion in the implementation of Planned Residential and Planned Commercial zones.

In January 2024, after two of seven Aiken City Council members endorsed prioritizing a rewrite of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, city staff moved ahead with the project. Seeking public input was not a part of that step forward.

On January 31, 2024, the city’s procurement department issued a Request for Qualifications for a consulting firm specializing in urban planning to undertake leadership of the Zoning Ordinance rewrite.

In June 2024, a review committee consisting of four staff members—the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and two members of the Planning Department—selected the Chicago, Illinois-based urban planning consulting firm of Houseal-Lavigne to facilitate the process. City Council members were absent from the review and selection committee; one that also decided the process would lead to the creation of broader, more standardized Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).

On July 9, 2024, the proposed contract was presented to City Council during a work session. According the consulting firm’s presentation, the first period of “community engagement” was scheduled for late summer and early fall (Figure 2). Houseal-Lavigne’s $228,000 contract (Pages 161-179) was subsequently approved at the July 9th regular meeting.

According to the meeting minutes, prior to any rewrite “a lot of community engagement to get a sense of what (people) like about the ordinance and what (people) feel needs to be fixed moving forward” would occur. Later in the process, a communications plan would ensue that solicits comments on the draft plans.

Six months later, no opportunities for community engagement and citizen involvement have been announced. The existing Ordinance has yet to be subjected to scrutiny. Since the workshops promised during House-Lavigne’s presentation to Council have yet to materialize, it could be safe to assume the process, like the County’s Comprehensive Plan, could continue into 2026–especially if city residents choose to seriously engage in the process.

Figure 3. Six of the original Project Pascalis properties that are up for sale and redevelopment.
The six properties are presently owned by the City of Aiken; whose Municipal Development
Commission purchased them for $7.5 million in November 2021. An additional $2 million was
spent on the Newberry Hall property; which was sold to the lessee in 2024 for $1.125 million.

Downtown Development

The highly controversial downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis, which dominated city politics in 2022, was cancelled by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) on September 29, 2022. After months of inertia followed by indecision, in May 2023 the AMDC was dissolved and ownership of the half-block of commercial properties known as the Pascalis properties reverted to city ownership.

At City Council’s December 11, 2023, regular meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh presented Council with a detailed procurement plan to find a “real estate firm experienced in marketing property for adaptive reuse and renovation” for the Pascalis properties “primarily fronting the southern side of the 200 block of Richland Avenue West.”

Initially, four of the six remaining Pascalis project properties—the McGhee Building, the Taj Aiken restaurant building, the Holley House motel property, and the Hotel Aiken–were in the package. After some discussion, the Warneke Cleaners property was added to the mix and Council agreed to the approach; one that also was met with no public resistance.

The original plan presented to Council and meeting attendees did contain the caveat that the Hotel Aiken and Holley House could be purchased separately. The presented material stated that:

” Other evaluation criteria being equal, preference shall be given to a buyer who will provide a high-quality historic renovation and adaptive reuse for all of the properties listed above collectively. However, a buyer who proposes solely on the 235 Richland Ave W (Hotel Aiken) and 112 Bee Lane SW properties (Holly House) shall not be excluded.”

However, that thoughtful provision was absent from the Request for Qualifications that was issued only one week later. It will be all or nothing for potential developers.

Two firms submitted proposals for the job of marketing the properties, and the Colliers company was selected for the task. By the time Colliers put together a prospectus for potential buyers and developers, the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens Street SW (home of Vampire Penguin and Ginger Bee) had also been added to the bundle of properties (Figure 3); meaning that the same package as Project Pascalis, minus Newberry Hall, was in play.

In November 2024, Colliers representative Tommy Tapp provided a status update to Council; he described how more than twenty interested parties had expressed interest, and eleven tours of the properties for highly interested potential buyers and developers had been completed.

According to the meeting minutes (pages 9-11), Tapp stated that about half of the twelve parties that were interested enough to request tours are hotel developers, and half are apartment/condo developers; with all of them interested in harvesting historic tax credits. He told Council that the prospect of tax credits “is what is driving the project and the numbers.”

Tapp added that “one of the common questions, even from phone calls, is about parking in Aiken. The number one question that everybody has—what about parking and how much parking is available…Everybody is interested in talking about parking garages. That is a common theme that has come up.”

A Request for Proposals was then issued by Collier’s, and offers were due on December 23, 2024. According to Tapp, he would “collect the offers and review them to see if there is anything significantly missing or anything confusing and ask for clarification.” Once that is done, he will turn those over to the City Manager and “the offers will be for the city’s eyes only.”

Tapp had also stated, at the 16:40 mark of the meeting, that this need for discretion was due to “another concern, is their bid going to be kept secret? They don’t want it shopped around in the press or made public because one of the the criteria is ingenuity and creativity and what they can do with the project.”

Even though excessive secrecy was a contributing cause to the demise of Project Pascalis, no City Council members raised any concern about the perceived need for secrecy regarding final bids for a multi-million package of prominent, city-owned properties.

Elections

Since Project Pascalis, a common refrain on social media pages, and elsewhere, has been “We need new leadership.” That sentiment has commonly been accompanied by support for a “smarter growth” strategy that preserves Aiken’s status as one of South Carolina’s most desirable small cities to reside.

This year, City of Aiken residents who seek more change in leadership will have the opportunity to such change a reality; as four of the seven Aiken City Council seats are on the 2025 ballot. Those seats are currently held by Council members Lessie Price (District 2), Ed Girardeau (District 4 ), Ed Woltz (District 6), and Andrea Gregory (District 5). The latter three were all first elected in 2017 and have now served two terms; while Lessie Price has served her Northside district since 1988. No Council member faced a viable challenger in 2021.

However, the potential emergence of any viable candidates who favor divergence from the current status quo remains murky. Although the Mayoral race of 2023 featured three strong candidates, and ultimately an upset of incumbent Mayor Rick Osbon by only 14 votes, Councilwoman Kay Brohl (District 3) faced no opposition during the primary or the general election; while Councilwoman Gail Diggs (District 1) faced a weak challenger whose vote total was only in the double digits.

At the same time, since voter turnout during municipal elections is chronically poor, council members generally receive vote totals in the hundreds, not thousands. For example, in the 2017 Republican primary, Andrea Gregory won with only 220 votes; while Ed Woltz defeated incumbent Councilman Philip Merry with only 240 votes. Turnout in both the primary and general elections was only eight percent. The lesson is that any well organized campaign can stage an upset of an incumbent or establishment candidate.

The Election Schedule that was announced this week (page 395) is as follows:

July 7: Opening of filing for nomination petitions and other filing of
candidates for nomination in municipal political party primaries or conventions.

July 14: Closing of filing of candidates for nomination by political parties.

August 12: Municipal party primaries.

August 26: Municipal party primary runoffs, if necessary.

August 21: Closing of entries for nomination by petition.

November 4: Election Day.

Aiken County, Development Issues, Public Safety, Stormwater and Flooding

A Stormwater Story

4 Comments

How Aiken County permitted development activities that led to road closures.

by Don Moniak
January 11, 2024

On two occasions in the Fall of 2024 , the University Parkway (Hwy 118) portion of Aiken’s bypass was temporarily closed at its junction with Vaucluse Road. While the official reason for the closures provided by government officials was flooding, a better term would be “debris flow,” as heavy soil erosion caused by major rain events led to the road being covered with sandy sediments that posed an unacceptable risk to public safety.

The first incident occurred after approximately 8.0 inches of steady rain over a 24-hour period— Hurricane Helene and the “predecessor” rain event—fell from September 26-27. The second incident was on November 6th following close to five inches of rain in about a 12-hour period. According to a Department of Transportation report, the cause November 6th closure resulted from sediments that accompanied a stormwater detention pond failure that was under construction.

In both instances, the sandy debris originated from a housing construction site known as Highland Bluffs, where a subdivision of 110 single-family homes is under development, and 116 townhome-style apartments are scheduled for a second phase of development (Figure 1). The developer, Highland Bluff LLC, is operating on a relatively steep slope that was has been described by Aiken County Administrator Brian Sanders at a County Council meeting as “precarious.”

From Approval to Road Closures.

On September 13, 2022, the City of Aiken’s Planning Commission recommended providing city water and sewer services for the development, and Aiken City Council gave final approval on September 26, 2022.

In April 2023, the Aiken County Planning Commission gave the developer preliminary plat approval for the single-family residences. The resolution any identified issues, including any that might be raised by the county’s engineering staff, was required before construction could begin. All of those contingencies were resolved by April 2024.

Construction began in May 2024. The heavily forested site was clearcut except for 10 to 15-foot forested buffers along the two roads bounding the site preparation work. Intensive grading ensued to prepare the site for high density housing.

Figure 1: Highland Bluffs Conceptual Plan
Highland Bluffs Location


According to County inspection reports*, problems quickly emerged in May and June that plagued the site all summer. The chronic issues included torn silt fences, an entrance that needed constant maintenance to prevent sediment from leaving the site, and soil erosion via strong winds resulting in sediments “leaving the disturbed area.” There were also “drink bottles/trash found in several areas” in May and “all over” the site in July.

In July, the county inspector reported (Figure 2) that lack of maintenance was allowing sediment to leave the site via swales (drainage ditches) in the site right of way entrances; and that the detention pond that was under construction was lacking riprap (stones placed on the shoreline to prevent erosion), a skimmer (to drain only the topmost, sediment-free layer of water), and slope stabilization. In addition, the catch basins were holding sediment, but sediment was also “leaving the site via a culvert.”

Figure 2: Portion of August 2024 county inspection report.

After a wet July that included at least one rain event of more than three inches, the inspector added that, “many slopes will need to be repaired. Issues along Vaucluse Road need to be addressed.”

By the end of a drier August, water erosion was again replaced by wind erosion that settled fine dust on neighboring properties, the culvert at the entrance was missing riprap, the detention pond still lacked erosion controls, and “both construction entrances (were) allowing sediment to leave site via swales in ROW.”

Figure 3: Before
After

Figure 4: September 28, 2024 road closure
Looking east at Road Closure with sediment across road

Not a single local media source accurately cited the reason for the closure, leaving the misimpression that it was floodwaters that caused the closures, not a debris flow.

At Aiken City Council’s November 12th meeting, Aiken Public Safety Chief Charles Barranco confirmed the latter road closure stemmed from “debris from the property above the road.”

At County Council’s November 19th meeting, the issue was raised during the public comment period. County Administrator Brian Sanders also confirmed the closures stemmed from sediments originating from the Highland Bluffs construction site, and cited the detention pond construction as the primary source.

In response to subsequent questions raised by Council members PK Hightower and Kelly Mobley, Sanders also stated that “they have a right to develop their property,” and that “they are doing everything right.”

However, the County’s inspection records suggest that the County’s own guidelines legal guidelines for site preparation were arguably not met in this instance.

According to Section 19.5-23 of the County Code, these measures include the use of “temporary plant cover, mulching, and/or structures to control runoff…during the period of development or land use change,” disturbing the smallest area practical at any one time, retaining natural vegetation and saving topsoil, and provisions to “effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused by the changed soil and surface conditions; i.e. diversion ditches, grassed or surfaced water-ways and outlets, enlarged and protected drainage channels.

This is not the first new subdivision in North Aiken to suffer from excessive soil erosion during the site preparation phase that impacted neighbors and affected public safety. Similar dust storms originating from the Portrait Hills subdivision in early 2023–permitted by the City of Aiken—covered neighboring homes and businesses with a fine layer of gritty dust and sand and created visibility issues on Highway 19 North.

The lesson learned is that the promises made by local government to concerned neighbors regarding new developments should certainly be treated by concerned citizens with a dose of healthy skepticism.

Footnote

*Aiken County inspections from May to August, 2024. Obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Aiken County, Editorials, Education, South Carolina

Raising the Grade for South Carolina Education

2 Comments

by Dan Reider
January 8, 2025

The rating of a State’s educational performance is measured by various metrics such as standardized test scores, graduation rates, and similar indicators of the quality of the education provided by a State. One rating system might lean more heavily on perhaps test scores while another might look at a combination of test scores and graduation rates. While the listed rankings may vary depending upon the method utilized by the particular organization, the values are typically very similar. In other words, one State would not be ranked 15th by one organization and 37th by another.

In the past 10 or 15 years, South Carolina has consistently been ranked in the bottom 10% of all States regardless of which ranking system one looked at. In the latest listing by US News and World Report, South Carolina is currently ranked at number 42. While still in the bottom 20% of all States, the educational system is ranked higher than it has been in past years, hopefully indicating some improvement and not just a downgrade of several other States. South Carolina is still not quite up there with surrounding States but at least it has moved out of the bottom 10%. Our bordering States’ educational systems are still being ranked substantially higher than South Caroline with North Carolina at 21, Tennessee at 31, Georgia at 25, and Kentucky ranked at 34.

According to the rankings, South Carolina’s educational system is moving in the right direction albeit very slowly. There is still much more work to be done. There is no reason anyone in this State should be satisfied with a ranking in the bottom 20%. So, what can and must be done? It cannot solely boil down to only dollars which is the primary issue one reads about from time to time in the news. It wasn’t that long ago where the minimum starting teacher’s salary in South Carolina was $36,000. Ellen Weaver, SC Superintendent of Education, has been pushing to increase the base salary to $50,000 over the next couple of years. That may help to get more persons interested in teaching as well as motivate some of those already teaching to stay in teaching, but, as the proverbial expression goes, just throwing money at the problem does not necessarily make the problem go away. As we all know, the problem is much more than money.

Teachers Salaries. Before we leave the topic of money, the base salary- whether it is $36,000 or $50,000 may not be enough of factor to convince teachers to work in the traditionally poorest performing districts in the State. Without listing which districts are classified as poor performing districts, one only has to be familiar with the court case of Allendale County School District vs. The State of South Carolina (circa 1993) to know which districts and how many there were, and pretty much still are, considered to be poorest performing school districts in the State. To get the quality of education in each of those districts to where it needs to be, there will undoubtedly need to be additional financial incentives to even get persons to consider teaching and working in those districts.

Educational Facilities. So, what other measures should be considered to help better educate the children of this State? One might look at the better performing school districts and see that they generally have better quality facilities than the poorer performing districts. The districts with better science classrooms and laboratories, better performing arts centers, better athletic facilities, and better overall facilities certainly do seem to have overall much higher performing students. While no one is making the argument that there is a direct correlation between facilities and student success, the State must find a way that each district has the facilities in which to adequately educate the students of that district. Without a good classroom teaching environment, without proper technology, without facilities to allow students to express themselves through the arts, without all those things which help educate and allow the child and young adult to grow, we cannot expect them to reach their full potential while in our schools.

Aiken County School District has made significant improvements with their educational facilities in many parts of the District over the past decade or so. Additions and upgrades were made to several elementary schools including Belvedre, Millbrook, Graniteville and Hammond Hill. A new Leavelle McCampbell Middle School and Highland Springs Middle School were built. Two new high schools, Wagener and Ridge Spring-Monetta, were constructed along with renovations and additions to Midland Valley HS, North Augusta High School and Aiken High School. The new Aiken Career and Technology Center is currently under construction. While several hundred million dollars have been spent on new construction, renovations, and additions, there is still much to do within the District to bring all the facilities up to the standards required by the District. Unfortunately, there are still too many districts within the State that have not made anywhere near the improvements which have been made in Aiken County.

Greendale Elementary School (top) in New Ellenton is one of the oldest schools in Aiken County
and is currently low on the list for improvements or replacement. Leavelle-McCampbell Middle School in
Graniteville is one of the newest schools in the County.



School Choice. There has been much made over the past year or so about the State’s Superintendent of Education, Ellen Weaver’s support of all educational institutions including private schools, charter schools, religious schools and the home school approach towards education in addition to public schools. Make no mistake- this is support in addition to public education and not in lieu of public education facilities. The intent, as many see it, is that we should support our children as best we can no matter where they receive their education. Some have argued that financially supporting any student- except those at public schools- is detrimental to the public educational system. However, one must consider the reasons why a parent may choose to have their child receive their education in an institution or facility other than a public school. Some reasons include the fact that the child might not get a good education at a poorly performing school, the child might have medical or psychological reasons why a public school at that time is not the best environment for that child, the school does not offer certain courses, the student might want to focus more strongly on religious studies, or the school simply does not provide what a parent would consider a safe environment. Financially supporting a child attending a non-public school should not be viewed, as it apparently often is, as an attempt to downgrade or negatively impact public education. It should, however, be motivation for the State to see if there is a way to improve public education in a district especially where there has been a long track record of the district’s poor performance.

Homework. As we have been seeing for a while now in various school districts around the Country, some schools are implementing a no homework policy. The reason given in most cases is that some students have parents whom check to make sure that the student is doing the homework and, in some cases, even help the student with the homework while other parents don’t even understand or care that the student is supposed to do their homework regardless of whether or not that parent can actually help the student with the homework. In lieu of eliminating homework for that reason, the schools should develop various programs- whether these are after school programs or ones worked in during the normal school hours- to assist students who don’t otherwise understand that homework is an essential part of their responsibility. Obviously, this adds to the school’s workload and could possibly require additional teachers, after school transportation and things like that. However, it is essential that these efforts are made to the extent practical to help keep a student from falling further and further behind in school.

Grade Levels. While it is ideal for a student to keep up with their work and move on each year to the next grade level, this issue of standardized grade levels needs to be given a little more consideration. If in lieu of moving a child up a grade level one year to the next in all subjects, whether they are truly ready in each of those subjects or not, why not move a student up to the next level in only those subjects where they have achieved a minimum level of proficiency? For example, if a 9 year old student is ready to move up to 4th grade for English and Reading but not Math, have that student continue on the current Math curriculum until which time they are ready to move up to the next grade level. We understand that this makes class scheduling more complex and there will some anxieties generated when one’s classmates move on in a subject and a child remains behind in one of those classes. However, this may not be just a few students and when this becomes the norm for a district, the anxiety issues may be not as great of a concern. A change in terminology may help as well. For example, in lieu of calling a class 3rd Grade Math or 4th Grade Math, the course could be called Level One Pre-Algebra, etc. It is well documented that some school districts have been graduating students knowing that they are not proficient in one or more subjects. Statistically, this looks good for the district but is not helping the student achieve future goals.

Student Behavior. Apparently, one of the more sensitive issues is with how to address student behavior while in school and under the care of the teachers and administration. As was mentioned earlier, one reason given by some parents for a student to attend a non-public school is that the family does not feel particularly comfortable with some of the behavioral issues the teachers and administration have to deal with, and other students are subjected to, in a school. The rules for behavior must be clearly spelled out and understood by the students and parents alike. Certain behaviors such as fighting, bullying and things of that nature have always been an issue in the school environment and need to be swiftly and fairly addressed by the administration. These types of behaviors will never be completely eliminated in schools but everyone needs to understand the consequences of such behavior. For whatever reason, the consequences of these behaviors seem to be much better understood by the students in non-public schools than public schools.

Administrative Support. Lastly, but certainly not the least important, the teachers and administration must work closely to create the best educational environment in which to educate our children. We have all heard stories where the teachers in a school did not feel supported by the administration. Teachers are sometimes instructed that when they have a student with behavioral issues, they- the teacher- have to take care of the issue within the classroom. Often, one hears about a teacher losing control and grabbing or pushing a student. While there is no excuse for those actions, the stresses leading up to this could have been the lack of support from the administration in properly addressing certain situations. The administration must be receptive to listening to problems and criticisms by teachers and attempting to resolve those in a timely manner.

Another problem has been where a district may have no clear policy on things such as cell phone use within the school or even within a classroom, but this is quickly changing. Aiken County School District recently joined a growing number of school districts in South Carolina where cell phone use within a classroom is prohibited. Measures such as this have met a fair amount of resistance from parents but overall is viewed as a necessary policy.

We, in South Carolina, cannot continue to accept a poorly performing education system in many of our school districts. Many articles have been written in the past twenty years about how poorly some school districts in South Carolina are performing. A great article summarizing many of these issues, and discussing some potential solutions, was written in an article from Winthrop University – All Talk, But No Action: A Reexamination of Education in South Carolina’s Corridor of Shame (2018).

While there are many reasons for a student not receiving a minimally adequate education, we need to address as many of those as reasonably possible. Without a decent education, many of those students will face many obstacles in their adult lives. Not everyone needs to be a doctor, lawyer, educator, engineer, or have a career job requiring a college degree or post graduate degree. There are a lot of great careers possible without a very high level of education. However, in this day and age, without achieving a minimum level of education- such as a high school education with passing grades- the opportunities for that student become considerably less than if they had gotten a good education. To solve many of the problems, it will take considerably more funding than is currently provided for our educational system- facilities, teachers, administration- especially in our poorest performing school districts. However, it is absolutely essential that we need to move our educational system in the right direction and to move us in that direction as expeditiously as possible.