How one developer who successfully pursued a half-million dollar incentive agreement with the City of Aiken expected more financial assistance; and how the City acquiesced.
by Don Moniak
February 20, 2026
This past fall, spectators at two Aiken City Council meetings–October 27 (1:50 to 2:08 mark) and November 10 (from 1:27 to 2:26 mark)–endured more than an hour of confusing and indecisive Council discussions during public hearings. Specifically, the agenda item in question was:
Public Hearing of an Ordinance Approving Certain Economic Development Incentives for Residential Development to be Developed by Van Rock Holdings and Commercial Development to be Developed by VP Riverside, LLC (see pages 246-293).
The proposed economic incentives were for the Rutland Place development across from Aiken High School (see map). Aiken City Council approved the Concept Plan in July 2024, which consists of 245 housing units on 38.5 acres to be developed by Van Rock Holdings of Greenville, SC, and seven commercial parcels on an 11-acre strip fronting Rutland Drive to be developed by VP Riverside of North Augusta.
VP Riverside purchased the property in 2022 for $2.5 million. In 2025, they divided the property into three parcels, with the residential 38- acre portion being sold to Aiken Rutland Place LLC of Greenville for $2.79 million; a 4.57 acre parcel containing the Tractor Supply store being sold for $0.75 million to 3D Development Holdings LLC of Georgia; while VP Riverside retained a 6.3-acre parcel acre for future commercial development.
The anchor of the commercial development, a Tractor Supply store, was in the late construction stages at the time of the debate, and has since opened. In this instance the developer sought, and eventually received, an incentive for one part of the project that was nearly completed. Two fast food chains and an auto parts store are reported by the developer to be under consideration for development on the remaining six acres.
The Economic Development Incentive Ordinance.
In August of 2018, the Aiken City Council approved an Economic Development Incentive Program Ordinance that allows for up to fifty percent of certain fees, and fifty percent of the first five years of business license taxes, to be reimbursed to any developer who meets a specified investment threshold. The Ordinance does not specifically place a cap on reimbursements, but since its enactment reimbursement caps have been placed on all incentive awards.
The eligible development costs include utility connection and sewer impact fees levied per Section 44-5 of City Code, building permit fees, the first five years of business license fees, and any “such other Incentives that the Council, at its discretion on a case-by-case basis, determines are appropriate given the amount or type of investment made by the Project Sponsor.”
The vaguely specified thresholds are that a project is consistent with the City of Aiken Comprehensive Plan, advances the goals of the City, and provides benefits to the City that exceed the value of the incentives.
The Ordinance was not passed on a whim. It was first presented at a work session in April 2018, had its first reading four weeks later, and was subjected to a subsequent public forum. Based on the input collected during that period, the Ordinance was amended and passed in its final form on August 13, 2018.
Since 2018, one small business and numerous developers have benefitted from the incentive program (Table 1). Although the Ordinance does not place a cap on the potential fees, it has been city policy to make fee estimates and cap the reimbursement at 50% of estimated fees. If actual fees exceed the estimate, then the developer receives less than half of those costs.
| Project Name | Year | Reimbursement Cap |
| Betsy’s on Park | 2019 | $10,800 |
| 227 Park Avenue | 2019 | $3,600 |
| Chesterfield Place | 2019 | $4,250 |
| Mark at Woodford Apts | 2020 | $100,000 |
| Palomino Oaks | 2021 | $243,520 |
| Portrait Hills | 2021 | $112,661 |
| The Magnolia | 2022 | $70,000 |
| Seter Ridge Apts | 2024 | $90,000 |
| Weller’s Ridge Apts | 2025 | $70,000 |
| Rutland Place Commercial | 2025 | $187,747 |
| Rutland Place Residential | 2025 | $356,516 |
Since the inception of the incentives Ordinance, no developer had ever publicly challenged the City’s incentive numbers.
That changed during the first public hearing, on October 27, 2025, on the Rutland Place incentives package.
After the Ordinance was introduced, VP Riverside* partner Charles Johnson argued at length to City Council that the fee estimates submitted by his firm were higher than those formulated by City staff.
At one point, Mr. Johnson described the amount of actual fees to be reimbursed as “punitive” to developers because the reimbursement amount was capped by the estimated amount incorporated into the Ordinance. He stated:
“Since this ordinance really pays back 50% of the total fees paid by the developer over five years by having a number that limits us to a a dollar value is really punitive to the developer. It’s not punitive to the city if the number’s low because if the developer pays more, they just don’t pay them back more. However, if the number’s too low and the developer pays more, they’re limited on what they can get back.
So, with that being said, having our numbers in there, which we feel are absolutely correct, and we’re willing to defend that, would not be punitive to the city, but if we went with the lower number that was submitted, and that is the cap on it, it’s certainly punitive to the developer.”
No member of Council challenged this assertion; but neither did any member of Council support an open-ended incentive based on actual final costs.
Despite the insurmountable confusion over the financial data, City Council unanimously approved the incentives on the First Reading, setting up a final public hearing two weeks later. In the interim, Council guided staff to work to eliminate the confusion by reengaging with the developer to provide final, more accurate and better understood numbers before the Second Reading of the Ordinance.
The Second Reading of the Public Hearing occurred on November 10th, and the discussion was even rockier; the numbers more confusing. At this meeting, VP Riverside partner Todd Glover–who is also Executive Director of the powerful Municipal Association of South Carolina–took over the task of arguing that city staff were shortchanging VP Riverside.
In short, the ensuing debate only added to the confusion and City Council voted for a continuation of the Second Reading.
During the next month, VP Riverside and city staff met to iron out differences, with VP Riverside clearly gaining financial benefit from the exercise. During the continued December 8, 2025 Second Reading, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh described the City’s interactions with VP Riverside as “hand-holding” and “everything short of singing Kumbaya.”
The size of the final incentive subsidies for VP Riverside dwarf previous awards (Table 1). The rise in the estimates of project fees between October 25 and December 8 is also striking (Table 2).
| Date of Estimate | Commercial | Residential | Total |
| 10/27/26 | $113,135 | $700,855 | $813,990 |
| 11/10/26 | $118,910 | $842,910 | $961,820 |
| 12/08/26 | $375,495 | $713,032 | $1,088,520 |
The financial differences between earlier versions and the final figures (Figure 1) were not revealed in the City Manager’s memorandum for Council’s December 8th meeting; when the Second Reading (see pages 119-136) was continued. The necessity for economic incentives for residential development during a housing boom across the County was never discussed or evaluated.
With no debate, the incentive package was approved by a unanimous vote by a Council with three new members.
Footnote
* VP Riverside LLC’s agent is Attorney Ray Massey, who is one of City Attorney Gary Smith’s law partners. Smith did recuse himself from the Second Reading of the Rutland Place concept plan public hearing in July 2024, after that potential conflict of interest was raised in a letter to City Council. At the time, he stated he was unaware of what Mr. Massey’s role, if any, was in the project. (see Page 4 of meeting minutes)
Mr. Smith did not recuse himself from the VP Riverside Incentive Ordinance process.