All posts by donaldmoniak

Aiken County Government, Editorials, Freedom of Information

How Aiken County Council Under-Informs Its Constituents

3 Comments

Monitoring of Aiken County Council’s legislative proceedings is hindered by several unique factors that serve to under-inform the citizens of Aiken County. Agenda information is withheld from the public almost until the legal limit. Committee meetings are held in backrooms. No meetings are live streamed and archived. Meeting minutes are minimal, tell no story, and provide no real history. At the present time, the only accurate archive of meetings is an audio recording that is only available upon request, and not openly shared on the Aiken County website.

This opaque situation could be easily improved. Some simple measures include live streaming and archiving of public meetings, releasing meeting agendas and documents on the same day that Council members receive their copies, holding all committee meetings in spacious Council chambers rather than in small back rooms, and publishing meaningful meeting minutes.

by Don Moniak
September 8, 2026

Aiken County Council meets twice a month (first and third Tuesdays of the month) from January until June, and once a month (third Tuesday) for the remainder of the year. The meetings usually begin around 5 pm with upwards of three Committee Meetings—Development, Administrative, and Judicial and Public Safety—that consume up to an hour in total. These are followed by a Work Session at 6 pm and the Regular Meeting at 7 pm. Public input is allowed during any planned Public Hearings (1) during the regular meetings, and during the “Informal Meeting of the Whole” (2) which marks the end of meetings—barring any closed-door Executive Session.

Meeting agenda background information is mostly contained in a package known as “CC Docs.” Citizens interested in Council business must figure out the order of meetings for the day and navigate between multiple documents to follow the issues.(3)

In regard to agendas and background documents, Council under-informs by legislative fiat. The Aiken County Code of Ordinances mandates a two-tiered information dissemination system, in which Council members receive their packets four days before the meeting while their constituents and media receive access to them the day before the meetings.

Section 2-55 of the County Code states that “the county administrator shall distribute all regular meeting agendas to the (Council) members, with associated background documents, the Friday evening preceding a Tuesday council meeting.”

The Ordinance goes on to state that the administrator “shall make the full agenda package available to the general public and the press at 8:30 a.m. on the Monday morning preceding a Tuesday meeting.”(4)

There is no discernible motive for this two-tiered system of information dissemination for Council’s meetings; but it does serve a purpose. By restricting access to the agenda until the day before meetings, the practice functions to protect Council members from being pestered on the weekend by calls and emails from constituents concerned with any agenda items—and prevents them from being inundated with calls regarding any proposed controversial measures.

A case in point occurred on January 20, 2026, when the Council’s Administrative Committee chaired by Councilman Andrew Siders had “possible dissolution of the Aiken Barnwell Bamberg Edgefield (ABBE) Regional Library system” at the top of its agenda.

With barely a day’s notice, approximately forty Aiken County residents traveled to the meeting, Administrative Building, driving from all over the County to attend a committee meeting. Although public input was not sought or allowed, numerous citizens held up signs saying “Save ABBE.”

The message from concerned citizens would certainly have been more pronounced if citizens had known on the previous Friday that the beloved ABBE system was under consideration for the chop block.

The Smokeless Back Rooms

This event also highlighted another aspect of Council’s propensity to under-inform. For the past few years Committee meeting venues have been in small conference rooms—-literally back rooms without smoke—instead of in the spacious Council chambers which seat upwards of 150 people.

The back rooms in this case are two conference rooms, one of them only about 300 square feet with a public seating capacity of about fifteen. Council members, the County Administrator, and the County Attorney sit at the table with their backs to the audience—instead of facing constituents as practiced during Work Sessions and Regular Meetings. The atmosphere is more clubby than legislative.

In the case of the library issue, the crowd was standing room only, with more than a dozen people confined outside the room, out of hearing range. Concerned Aiken County citizens were rudely shut out of the process and under-informed by choice of Council. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. January 20, 2026 Council Council Administrative Committee Meeting. The small back room was filled to capacity and attendees spilled into the hall. Two citizens can be seen in the doorway trying to listen to the discussion. At least a dozen people were behind them, completely shut off from the process. In the foreground is Councilman Phil Napier. Across the table and to his right is Councilman Mike Kellems. To the left is County Administrator Brian Sanders.

This photo is a screenshot from a video recorded by Aiken County resident Vicki Simons, who reported:

“I noted that the room in which the meeting was held was much, much too small to hold those interested in the second agenda item: Discussion of ABBE Library.
Although I was not able to count folks beyond the doorway, I counted:
– 37 people around the side (sitting and standing); and
– 10 people sitting at the table.
The documentation for the Administration Committee is on the County’s website, ADM pp. 1-26.
The purpose of agenda item #2 was summarized by Bradley T. Farrar, Aiken County Attorney, regarding the Aiken-Bamberg-Barnwell-Edgefield Regional Library System (ABBE), its history, the process for dissolving the regional library system, and matters related thereto.
Numerous attendees held signs reading:
“SAVE ABBE”.
Toward the end of the discussion, Councilman Phil Napier summarized the matter by saying:
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
My video shows (at one point) the number of people in and overflowing from the room, most of whom were there out of concern for ABBE.”


The Twentieth Century Council Meeting

The most problematic means of under-informing the citizenry is Council’s refusal to modernize by live streaming its meetings and then archiving the recordings. The only way to actually hear a meeting without attending in person is by requesting an audio recording and traveling to the County building to retrieve it.

The Board of the Aiken County Public School District, the North Augusta City Council, and the Aiken City Council—as well as its three decision making bodies (Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and Board of Zoning and Appeals)—all live stream their meetings for remote viewers in the spirit of openness and access. The City of Aiken has meetings archived on You Tube that date back more than a decade. The most recent City Council meeting drew 128 views—enough people to fill the council’s chambers.

In contrast, citizens in a county the size of Rhode Island must travel to the City of Aiken to “see their County Council in action;” as Chairman Gary Bunker states when bringing meetings to order. With Council’s regular meetings being as short as half an hour, and rarely longer than ninety minutes, any resident in the Beech Island, Jackson, Monetta, Windsor, Wagener or other far flung areas can spend more time traveling than at the actual meetings.

The only time Aiken County Council has live streamed its meetings was when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a public health emergency by Governor Henry McMaster. When the state of emergency was terminated, live streaming ended,

The ongoing lack of live streaming is not a unanimous choice.

The current discussion began at the Administrative Committee’s February 20, 2024 meeting when Committee member Kelly Mobley asked for the issue to be placed on the agenda. The idea did not proceed any further while Mr. Mobley was in office.

The issue resurfaced at the February 4, 2025 regular meeting, when Council voted on a proposed budget amendment to fund the live streaming of Council meetings. The meeting minutes read:

“Councilman (Mike) Kellems made a motion for an amendment to the budget to include the $80,000 for broadcasting expenses to live stream Council meetings. Councilman Ball seconded the motion. The motion failed with a 5-3 vote. Councilman Kellems, Councilman (Landon) Ball, and Councilwoman (P.K.) Hightower were in favor.”

There was minimal dialogue on the topic during the meeting. Only after the meeting did Vice Chairman Andrew Siders share his thoughts with the Aiken Standard, stating that:

“First of all, it’s a tight budget year and there was an $80,000 price tag with that, Second of all, when you have that sort of system, everything changes, from the audience to Council. We believe it becomes more of a performance than a real dialogue, and we want this to be real dialogue. We don’t want it to be a performance.”

The controversy lay dormant until June 2026 when Council’s Administrative Committee (Siders, Kellems, and Ball) returned to the issue; deciding that day to ask staff to report back with an estimate of costs and a recommendation for venues—Facebook vs You Tube.

A month later, at its July 21, 2026 meeting, after staff reported that a suitable camera would cost ~$4,000 and that You Tube was the better choice for streaming, the Administrative Committee unanimously recommended furthering the project.

Andrew Siders told the Aiken Standard afterward that:

“I was against it before because I thought, there would be too much grandstanding. But I think we’ve moved beyond that point, and I think we’re ready for it as a council now. There is always the possibility [of grandstanding], but hopefully we can keep from [doing] it.”

But then, at its August 18, 2026 meeting, County Council voted against the live stream option by a vote of 5-3. Siders, Kellems and Ball voted to approve; while Chairman Gary Bunker, Councilmen Phil Napier, Sandy Haskell, and Ron Felder, and Councilwoman P.K. Hightower (5) voted against live streaming. Councilman Danny Feagan was absent.

The vote occurred without any open deliberation from Council members. After the meeting, Chairman Gary Bunker repeated part of Andrew Siders’ original objection when he told the Aiken Standard that:

“When County Council meetings were live streamed because of COVID-19, ‘I know the numbers that were watching (the meetings during COVID-19) were not very high, so I would question whether there is really a significant viewership out there. Second of all, I think there was a concern about the cost. And third of all, I think there is concern that by broadcasting…the County Council meetings could become less deliberative and more performative in front of the camera. Cameras tend to change peoples’ behavior.”

In all these instances, both Chairman Bunker and Vice-Chair Siders chose to share their opinions with a subscription newspaper but not with meeting attendees.

But even if they had also shared their thoughts with meeting attendees their statements would still have escaped inclusion in the meeting minutes.

The Council’s sparse meeting minutes continue to function as the final means of under-information. As described in “Obscuring the Present,” meeting minutes are minimalist at best, arguably falling short of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act requirements.

The majority of Aiken County Council members do not appear to understand how their opposition to live streaming, as well as other opaque practices, counterproductively fosters distrust of County government. A sense that something is being hidden permeates the public discourse. Instead of addressing this shortcoming, a majority of Council chooses a subtle regulation of speech to stem the bogeyman prospect of “performative” behavior or “grandstanding.”

This is unfortunate. As described in Aiken County Council, regular meetings are civil and professional affairs. Citizens seeking redress of any issues are treated with respect. Important legal information is conveyed when necessary in a thorough manner. The staff conveys a positive impression. Debate is mostly deliberative. In short, there is no reason to not share the proceedings and archive them in a more open manner that meets the spirit of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act.

Footnotes

(1) In regard to Public Hearings, County Council further under-informs in two ways, although these practices are not unique to the County.

First, the notifications meet the barest minimum requirement for publicizing public hearings. The only published announcements are made in the Aiken Standard, whose flagship newspaper the Post and Courier demands a $180/year digital subscription rate. The County refuses to post these advanced (14 day) notices on its website. The same holds true for the Aiken County Planning Commission.

Second, the narratives of public hearing notices often under-informs through the omission of key information.

For example, the notice for the Public Hearing regarding the sale of a County owned quarter-acre tract to an adjacent landowner conveniently left out the fact that the sale price was a mere $100. At that same meeting, an Ordinance Amendment failed to identify the subject was animal control, a subject that can draw considerable interest and controversy.

Finally, as reported in Transparency and Openness Needed in Aiken County Council Meetings, Council routinely fails to publicly disclose the names of companies and nature of business involved in Ordinances governing Fee in Lieu of Taxes agreements.

(2) County Council considered, but ultimately rejected, a proposal to place the Informal Meeting of the Whole public comment period AFTER any Executive Session. See Details Matter Regarding Protecting Freedom of Speech.

(3) Agendas are published by individual meetings. There is no summary agenda. As a result, there are up to nine separate files to follow for every meeting day. By comparison, the City of Aiken has two at the most.

Each committee has an agenda with its own packet, but agenda items are cross referenced with the Council’s documents, which creates more confusion. (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The set of eight files received from Aiken County Council for its February 17, 2026 public meetings. “CC Docs” contains supporting documentation for the Development and Administrative Committees’ agendas as well as for the Council agenda.”



(4) Seldom are the terms of the Ordinance met, as the release of information to the general public and the media generally occurs after 1 pm and sometimes as late as 4:30–barely meeting the SC FOIA mandate for release of agendas for public meetings within 24 hours.

Notably, the Aiken County Planning Commission employs even greater opaqueness regarding agenda packets. The County Planning Department does not even release, on the County website, the agenda documents provided to the Commission. Only the agenda is published. Citizens have to be on a mailing list to obtain the entire agenda packet.

(5) . An email was sent to Ms. Hightower inquiring as to the reason for her changed vote. No response has been forthcoming.

For a more detailed discussion of the live stream debate see Call for Livestreaming, Recording, and Archiving of Aiken County Government Meetings.





July 2026, Plutonium, Savannah River Site

The End of Another Surplus Plutonium Disposition Program

Leave a comment

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has put the brakes on the surplus plutonium Dilute and Dispose program and reassigned K-Area surplus plutonium processing capabilities to the plutonium pit production defense mission. The action marks the end of the latest effort to convert surplus military plutonium into a waste form that is impractical for reuse in nuclear weaponry. Thirty years have now passed since Savannah River Site was selected for long-term—up to 50 years—storage of various surplus plutonium oxides and “non-pit” metals without any meaningful disposition of the materials.

by Don Moniak
July 12, 2026

Since the early 1990’s, when the U.S. declared that approximately 50 metric tonnes of military plutonium was surplus to national security needs (leaving about 45 as nonsurplus), the Department of Energy (DOE) and its “semiautonomous” National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA, formerly known as “Defense Programs.”) have pursued various means to process the material into a form that is both inaccessible and much less usable for nuclear weaponry.

In January 1997, DOE decided to store all surplus plutonium not contained within plutonium pits at Savannah River Site (SRS)—a total ranging from 11-14 metric tonnes—for up to fifty years. By 2010 approximately 9.5 metric tonnes (1) of the material had been shipped from Rocky Flats and the Hanford site to SRS for storage in the old K-Reactor.

At the same time, DOE settled on a plutonium disposition plan called the dual track, one which involved converting two-thirds of the surplus into nuclear reactor fuel referred to as MOX (mixed-oxide) for use in nuclear reactors, and one-third into ceramic “pucks’ to be encased within the high level waste canisters produced at SRS’ Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF); a process called Immobilization.

DOE bailed out on the Immobilization path within five years and then attempted to proceed on the Pu/MOX fuel path alone. This path failed miserably, and in 2018 the final plug was pulled on the program, after a cost of more than $5 billion. Left behind was a shell of a hardened plutonium processing plant that DOE/NNSA is now converting into a plutonium pit production facility.

In 2018, DOE chose a new path, known as Dilute and Dispose, in which the plutonium oxide powder is mixed with a classified blend of “adulterants” that are said to denature the plutonium and make it much less reusable for weapons. The resulting waste material is then packaged and shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico for disposal in deep salt caverns. (For more information on the Dilute and Dispose program, see Offsite Insights 2022-1).

In August 2020, the State of South Carolina and the Federal Government agreed to a $600 million settlement agreement (2) due to the combination of the MOX fiasco and DOE’s failure to remove any significant amount of surplus plutonium to another state. The settlement now requires DOE to move the 9.5 MT that was shipped into SRS in the early 2000’s to another state by 2036. Failure to do so will result in unspecified fines, or probably an amended settlement agreement.

The Dilute and Dispose program was intended to resolve the issue. But the pace never came close to what was needed to satisfy the settlement, as only a single glovebox line was in place. That pace of work was scheduled to be increased with the addition of two more glovebox lines, but in 2025 DOE/NNSA put the brakes on that effort by shifting funds to the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility, a.k.a the Plutonium Pit Plant.

In a letter to the DNFSB regarding tritium safety at SRS, DOE/NNSA wrote that “The Tritium Finishing Facility project was one of three projects paused to redirect funding and personnel to higher-priority projects in the DOE/NNSA complex, including the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility (SRPPF), the Los Alamos Plutonium Pit Production Project (LAP4), and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), all of which require increased funding to remain on schedule.”

One of the other two projects with funding cuts was the dilute and dispose program. The program was to proceed with its single glovebox line.

Now, according to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), the program appears to be on permanent standby, if not altogether cancelled.

In their May 29, 2026, weekly report, DNFSB staff reported that the K-Area Dilute and Dispose facility will undergo a transformation in support of “metal preparation” (3) for plutonium pit production, and recommit to three glovebox lines:

“K-Area Plutonium Metal Preparation (K-PuMP): The RIs received a briefing from SRNS andNNSA personnel on their plans to convert the Surplus Plutonium Disposition (SPD) project in K-Area to a Defense Programs mission (see 4/17/2026 report). The new mission, K-PuMP, will produce plutonium metal feed to support the future Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility’s and Los Alamos National Laboratory’s pit production. The project will repurpose all three SPD gloveboxes for metal preparation while retaining process flexibility in one glovebox to have the ability to support future SPD mission scope if needed. The change to support plutonium metal preparation includes the addition of new equipment and changes to safety controls, including ventilation modifications, new fire dampers, inert glovebox and glovebox monitoring systems, and nuclear incident monitors for criticality.”

It is unclear whether any surplus plutonium will be reconverted to defense purposes, but the potential is there. SRS currently stores ~2.5 MT of weapons-grade Pu metals and 5.4 MT of weapons-grade Pu oxide powder in K Reactor

Meanwhile, the future of the ~9.0+ metric tonnes of surplus plutonium remaining from past Rocky Flats and Hanford shipments is now subject to new, advanced nuclear power options developed by industry and supported by federal government research and development, direct loans, and other subsidies.

In late May 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Order #14302 titled “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base.” One facet of the order involved the future of surplus plutonium contained within plutonium pits, as well as any other surplus plutonium not a part of the 9.5 metric tons involved in the South Carolina SRS/Plutonium settlement with the federal government.

Section 3(c) of the order states that:

The Secretary of Energy shall halt the surplus plutonium dilute and dispose program except with respect to the Department of Energy’s legal obligations to the State of South Carolina.  In place of this program, the Secretary of Energy shall establish a program to dispose of surplus plutonium by processing and making it available to industry in a form that can be utilized for the fabrication of fuel for advanced nuclear technologies.”

In other words, DOE was still authorized to continue Dilute and Disposte for the 9.0+ tons covered under the settlement agreement. But DOE/NNSA’s decision to end the program for ALL surplus plutonium appears to contradict the provision “except with respect to DOE’s legal obligations to the State of South Carolina.”

In either case, the future of surplus plutonium storage at SRS is shaping up to be more and more like the original 1996 decision of not more than 50 years. South Carolina’s political leadership is more likely to be patient this time around since the future of surplus plutonium again rests in part in the nuclear power industry’s hands (4).

Various forms of plutonium metal. Photos from various open source websites.


Footnotes:

1. During the closure processes at Rocky Flats, approximately 3.5 to 4.0 tons of plutonium “residues” were processed with some form of Dilute and Dispose and disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, a.k.a the plutonium waste dump. This process greatly reduced the amount of plutonium scheduled for shipment to SRS.

2. For more information regarding the plutonium settlement, see

SRS CAB Might Quit Snubbing Barnwell and Allendale Counties and Offsite-Infrastructure.

For information on the pace of Pu disposition at SRS relative to the settlement, the following was reported in We Will Have to Get Back to You:

“Since fully implementing a program known as “dilute and dispose,” in 2021, only 0.123 metric tons (MT) of the ~10.5 MT of surplus Pu stored at SRS has been processed into a waste form and sent to DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico for disposal. 

Less than 0.3 metric tons per year are currently being processed at K-Area; much of it awaiting approval for shipment to WIPP. The processing pace is not expected to pick up until after 2030, and only if an $800 million project to add two glovebox processing lines is completed.

3. Section S.2.2. of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Plutonium Pit Production describes metal preparation as a plutonium purification process:

“Plutonium Purification. Pit-derived (and other older) plutonium is not suitable for new manufacturing—it contains plutonium radioactive decay products (uranium, americium-241, and neptunium-237) and other undesirable characteristics. Therefore, the plutonium will be purified using pyrochemical (nonaqueous) recovery techniques, which generate plutonium-bearing residues that must be either recovered using aqueous techniques or disposed of as TRU waste.

The proposed purification techniques are well known and have been used successfully at DOE sites for many years.

Nonaqueous plutonium metal purification operations could include a combination of the following primary processes: (1) direct oxide reduction, which generally uses calcium metal to reduce plutonium oxide to plutonium metal; (2) molten salt extraction, which uses chloride salts to remove americium-241 from the plutonium; and (3) electrorefining, which uses chloride salts to remove other key impurities from the plutonium metal.”

From: Plutonium Pit Production processes, from the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Plutonium Pit Production at Savannah River Site and Los Alamos National Laboratory.



4. A Request for Applications for usage of the surplus plutonium was issued in October 2025. As of June 2026, DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy wrote that advanced negotiations are underway.

The RFA described 19.7metric tonnes of surplus plutonium as being available:

Screenshot


The breakdown in locations of these materials was not made available. Below is the 2019 breakdown of surplus Pu stored at SRS:

Screenshot



More information on this process is available from SRS Watch.

Aiken County Government, In the Courts, June 2026, Stormwater and Flooding

Stormwater Lawsuits

4 Comments

by Don Moniak
June 22, 2026.

In an area that annually averages nearly four feet of rain, with some years exceeding five feet, stormwater management is a constant challenge. Our predominantly sandy soils also create greater risks of sedimentation damage to down-gradient property owners and to our public waterways.

Aiken County has an agreement in place with the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (DES, formerly DHEC) to manage stormwater runoff; and has an Ordinance dealing strictly with stormwater. In short, the County regulates stormwater management while DES oversees the County.

In regard to its stormwater management practices, Aiken County was sued twice in 2025 for allegedly failing to protect property owners.

The first suit against the County was filed in March 2025, and involves an equestrian development known as Park Place Polo. The other lawsuit, filed in August 2025, involves a new golfing establishment, the 21 Golf Club.

In both suits, the Plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ actions have negatively impacted their properties and created stormwater runoff and sedimentation events that rise to the level of a trespass and loss of property values. Aiken County’s actions during the permitting process, or lack thereof, are alleged to have facilitated the damages.

The Cedar Creek Road/Park Place Polo Lawsuit

The Swartz and Gamm vs Aiken County, Park Place Polo, and the South Carolina Department of Transportation lawsuit involves chronic flooding on Cedar Creek Road, and the resultant sedimentation onto private property; including wetlands. Cedar Creek Road is a County-owned dirt road situated off Coleman Bridge Road; north of Highway 302. (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Cedar Creek Road and Park Place Polo properties.


The Cedar Creek Road stormwater problems have been exposed by WRDW News of Augusta, which has featured stories such as Like Clockwork: Cedar Creek Road Washes Out Again, Why Flooding Still Plagues Aiken County Residents on Rural Road, and Heavy Flooding Leaves Local Family Looking for Answers.

The complaint alleges that since 2022 storm water runoff (Figure 2) from Park Place Polo’s property developments have damaged the private property of two long-time residents—as well as causing the road itself to chronically washout. Sediments have smothered floodplains and flowed into a private pond along Cedar Creek.

Figure 2: Typical flooding from stormwater on Cedar Creek Road. (Photo by Duane Gamm).

The County permitted the large equestrian development without requiring any stormwater retention structures that would slow the streams of water during major rain events and thus protect downhill/downstream parties—including Cedar Creek and its associated wetlands, which are waters of the state.

As predictable, to date all defendants deny any wrongdoing.

However, SC DOT’s answer included the following statement that impugned the County and Park Place Polo:

“The Defendant SCDOT is informed and believes the inundation of storm water during rain events will continue without Aiken County modifying its permit for development or enforcing the permit Aiken County issued, and the Defendant SCDOT joins in the Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief to abate the continued inundation of storm water during rain events from which there is no adequate remedy at law for the Plaintiffs or the Defendant, SCDOT.”

SC DOT also filed a Motion for Joinder (to also be named as a Plaintiff) that stated drainage “had been fully adequate up until the development in the area above the Plaintiffs’ property whereupon the Plaintiffs’ property and the state highway, Coleman Bridge Road, have become inundated by storm water during rain events.” (The Motion was denied).

As for Aiken County’s role, in early 2023 County officials gave strong hints as to its complicity in this problem—which has cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, if not more than a hundred thousand, to address; and for which there is no foreseeable resolution of the problem.

The Aiken County Council’s February 21, 2023 public meeting featured a fifteen-minute discussion on the matter after Cedar Creek Road resident Duane Gamm brought the issue to Council’s attention.

The dialogue that evening, which occurred from the four minute to twenty-one minute mark in this audio, included the following statements:

Duane Gamm: “We have had at least seven events where the road is being washed out. Every  time it washes out they run the runoff onto my property. We have one inch of rain and the county comes out and spends $5,000 to fix the road.” 

“There is 80 acres that they have developed where the runoff comes down . Cedar Creek Road is actually a ridge. 80 acres up there does not have a cross drainage.“  (Figure 2)

“The wetlands are on my property and the county has cut a drain that goes right into it.” 

Councilman Kelly Mobley: “Are DHEC and the Corps aware of the wetlands issue we have?….Is there a solution that does not involve paving? If this happened because of a development that we allowed to happen, assuming this is a new polo field area….Whose responsibility is this? What is the challenge?” 

Duane Gamm: “They have to keep the runoff at or below the levels before they developed it.” 

Councilman Mobley: “DId the developer dump water from the new polo field onto Cedar Creek ? Is there stormwater being dumped on that road that was not being dumped there before?”

Councilman Mike Kellems: “When we built a fire department station on an acre and a half, we had to build a retention pond. Can staff answer why this wasn’t required here?” 

Councilman Mobley: “Mr. Killian, what kind of recourse do we have after the fact if in fact we find we did not adequately prepare? Is there remedial action we can take with the polo folks.” 

Assistant County Administrator Brian Sanders: “We tried to get the polo people to do something more.” 

Since this exchange, the road has continued to wash out after every major rainfall event; generally an inch or more within one day. Everytime it washes out, the County sends a grader to repair the damage and make the road passable again.

The solution proposed by the County is paving. But Cedar Creek Road is not on the list of paving projects to be funded by Capital Project Sales Tax dollars; nor is it on the list of County roads to be paved with state funding.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit slogs through the courts. According to a recent Consent Order, there will be no trial until at least after November 1, 2026, to allow for both more discovery time and an opportunity to “convene a meaningful mediation conference.

The 21 Golf Lawsuit

21 Golf is a new golf club being constructed on a 474-acre parcel northwest of Jackson, near Drag Strip Road.

According to the lawsuit, water is being discharged from a newly constructed pond onto the Plaintiff’s property.

The suit alleges that Aiken County is responsible for permitting and enforcing the stormwater management regulations applicable to 21 Golf Club, but has “failed to adequately investigate complaints about the improper discharge and failed to enforce stormwater regulations to protect the Plaintiff’s property.”

In its response, the County denied all culpability.

In its answer, 21 Golf denied the allegations but also named a Third Party, its grading contractor Morton Civil Services, writing that the company “expressly and/or implied warranted to 21 Golf that all work performed by them would be performed in a careful, diligent, and workmanlike manner and that any materials and/or services designed, supplied, or sold by them for use on the project would be merchantable and fit for their intended or specific purpose. To the extent the Plaintiffs’ allegations are true, the Third-Party Defendant breached their implied and/or express warranties of merchantability, workmanlike service, and/or fitness for a particular or intended purpose in the construction of the project.”

In other words, while admitting no liability, 21 Golf has taken the preemptive action to pass legal costs onto its contractor in the case of an award to Plaintiffs.

The case is currently in the discovery phase.

Aiken County Government, Wastewater

H 5321: “A Bill to Establish the Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority and Dissolve the Aiken County Public Service Authority”

2 Comments

An effort is afoot, via South Carolina House Bill 5321 that is sponsored by Aiken, Edgefield, and Saluda Counties’ State Representatives, to have the State of South Carolina seize control of Aiken County’s wastewater processing system, most notably the Horse Creek Pollution Control Facility. The process has created the unusual situation of two sets of locally elected officials in direct confrontation, as Aiken County Council vigorously opposes the legislation.

by Don Moniak
March 23. 2026

Aiken County’s Horse Creek Pollution Control Facility (also referred to as the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant or the County sewer plant) was at the center of two controversies in 2024.

The first, involving the proposed House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, was highly publicized. In that instance, a large public outcry merged with the realities of a wastewater plant audit that showed the County’s plant had nearly exceeded its sold, committed capacity—although the plant is still operating at only about 2/3 of its physical and permitted capacity of 20 million gallons a day. As a result, the County Council was able to cite the dedicated capacity shortage as a reason to not move forward with a vote on a Fee in Lieu of Taxes agreement with House of Raeford—which was a deal killer for the company.

The second, involving the raising of one-time capacity purchase costs from $0.48 per gallon per day to $10.89, actually had a greater impact but was underpublicized. The rate was raised (1) by County Council in September 2024, following a closed-door Executive Session.

Two years later, Aiken County’s delegation in the South Carolina House of Representatives appears to have taken offense (2) to those circumstances and opted this month to introduce legislation to abolish the operating entity of the sewer system, the Aiken Public Service Authority.

House Bill 5321 (3), “A Bill to Establish the Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority and Dissolve the Aiken County Public Service Authority,” seeks to shift ownership and operation of wastewater operations from the county-controlled Aiken Public Service Authority to a state-controlled Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority.

The bill would transfer all assets, primarily the wastewater plant and surrounding infrastructure, to the newly formed Authority. Thus, if the state were to somehow gain control of the sewer system, it would be run by political appointees from the Governors office rather than by local government.

The latter would be run by a nine-member Board of Directors from Aiken, Edgefield, and Saluda Counties, with members appointed by the Governor at the recommendation of County legislative delegations. No criteria for Board membership, other than residency, is stated in the bill.

According to members of County Council, the legislation came out of the blue. At their regular meeting on March 17, 2026, not a single Council member described being contacted by their local House representative about the bill. The legislation was a sneak attack.

During that meeting, County Attorney Bradley Farrar presented the case against this bill; during an agenda item to discuss a Council Resolution against the legislation that was ultimately unanimously approved. (Audio of presentation and subsequent Council discussion can be heard here.)

After reviewing key elements of the legislation and describing it as “having no legislative history, purpose, or rationale for its prescriptions,” Mr. Farrar identified holes in the proposal. One key issue is that the 1973 legislation—known as Act 542 (4)—that created the Aiken Public Service Authority was found to be unconstitutional in 1976 (Figure 1). The Authority created by Act 542 was thereafter defunct.

Figure 1. Slide from County Attorney Brad Farrar’s presentation during the March 17, 2026, County Council meeting. The entire presentation is available on the County’s website; as is the Resolution Against HB 5321.


What does exist is an Aiken Public Service Authority that is merely a Department within County Government—albeit one with its own “self-supporting enterprise fund” and not an entity dependent upon taxpayer dollars.

The Department was created in 1989 by the current Ordinance . The plant has been run as a Department of our County government, and not a Board of Directors, for 37 years. The County has been authorized by state law and the state Constitution to provide wastewater services, since it went online in the late 1970’s—with no interference from the state. Mr. Farrar made the case that even if the state were to create the Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority, the County remains authorized to operate utilities and as such can continue to control its existing wastewater processing assets. (Figure 2).

Mr. Farrar also addressed the human element in the equation. During a visit to the wastewater plant its workers, who are currently county employees, asked where the legislation would leave them and would they still have their jobs.

Unless workers qualify as assets in the same manner as a section of pipe, the legislation contains no mention, other than the transfer of personnel records, of a workforce that has the experience and institutional knowledge to operate the plant 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Figure 2: Slide from County Attorney Bradley Farrar highlighting key talking points in opposition to legislation seeking state control of the County’s sewer system.

H 5321 will be heard during a meeting of the Environmental Affairs Subcommittee of the House Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Environmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday, March 24, 2026. The meeting is at 9:30 a.m. and will be live streamed. H 5321 is the only agenda item.

(Update. As of 7:40 pm on 3/23/2026, the meeting is no longer listed under the video schedule)

Footnotes

(1) In regard to the capacity purchase cost of $10.89 per gallon per day, the cost increase from $0.46 was not as dramatic as perceived; because for years the County has been almost giving away its sewer capacity.

A December 18, 2024, letter (Pages 200-203) from County Attorney Bradley Farrar to the utilities who send their effluent to the wastewater plant contained a simple table (Figure 3), created by the County’s wastewater plant auditor, showing the varying levels of fees across the state. Aiken County’s “barely registered on the scale,” Farrar wrote.

Figure 3.

(2) The following is an excerpt from an email from Representative Bill Taylor to his constituents:.


“Wastewater Treatment Challenges in Aiken, Edgefield,
and Saluda Counties

When you flush the toilet, the waste doesn’t just vanish. Unless you have a septic tank, it travels miles to a treatment facility. For many residents of Aiken, Edgefield, and Saluda Counties, the Horse Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Beech Island, located on the Savannah River, is the facility.

Operated by Aiken County, the treatment plant serves Aiken, North Augusta, and nearly every town in the region. However, it’s currently struggling to meet the demands of our growing area. Despite $56 million in state loans and grants for upgrades in the past 5 years, the facility has not been expanded and is nearing capacity. That hinders economic development. 

In 2024, the Aiken Council rejected a request from House of Raeford for sewer service for a proposed chicken processing plant that would have created 950 jobs, with one councilman declaring that Aiken County is “closed for business.” What if a major manufacturer wanted to locate in Aiken County, bringing thousands of jobs? Would the answer be, “Sorry, we’re closed?”

Municipal customers have expressed frustration with their lack of input in setting sewer rates, expanding capacity, and having their complaints addressed. Compounding the issue, the SC Department of Environmental Services has cited the Horse Creek Plant for numerous violations, some of which have gone unreported. 

Underscoring the current crisis, a letter-to-the-editor in yesterday’s Aiken Standard was highly critical of the Aiken County Council for proposing a hike in the sewer impact fee to $10.89 a gallon from the current 48-cents. That’s an increase of 2,176% that would certainly stifle planned housing developments.

Proposed Solution: Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority

In response, a bipartisan group of legislators from the affected counties has introduced legislation (H.5321) to create the Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority. This new authority would take over the management of the wastewater treatment plant, transferring ownership from Aiken County.

A Horse Creek Authority would oversee water, sewer, and waste management services, governed by a nine-member board appointed by the Governor upon recommendations from the affected County Legislative Delegations. This organizational structure aims to ensure that municipal and other customers have a voice in the management of sewer services and the setting of reasonable rates.

The establishment of the Horse Creek Authority seeks to improve the efficiency and quality of public services in the region. A House subcommittee is expected to hold a hearing on the bill soon, during which many affected entities are likely to testify in support of the legislation.”

Comments:

Taylor is incorrect in his description of the chicken plant debate. The audio of that Aiken County Council meeting is available and there was no such claim of that Aiken County “is closed for business.”

Former Councilman Kelly Mobley did make a similar statement during the July 17, 2024 Public Hearing regarding the Capital Project Sales Tax. Councilman Mobley spoke strongly in favor of enacting developer ”impact fees” in Aiken County to compensate for the costs of rapid growth. 

He also added that the rate of housing developments is excessive and stated that, in terms of residential development, Aiken County should switch its “open” sign to “closed“ until the impacts on our infrastructure are better addressed.

It is notable that two nights later, at the July 19, 2024, County Planning Commission meeting, H5321 co-sponsor Representative Melissa Oremus also stated that “we can not continue to build things and worry about the aftereffects later.” The statement drew loud applause. 

During the chicken plant debate, Mobley actually said this;

““ I want everyone to know and understand that we have a great deal of concern about this project…all of this is top of mind. But do please understand we only took up the FILOT issue, and by right this company can build on this property…”

(3) The sponsors of the bill are Representative Bill Taylor (R-Aiken); Representative Melissa Oremus (R-Aiken/Beech Island/Midland Valley), Representative Bill Hixon (R-North Augusta), Representative Charlie Hartz (R-Aiken), Representative Bill Clyburn (D-Aiken and Edgefield Counties), and Representative Cally R. Forrest, Jr (R-Lexington and Saluda ).

(4) It is notable that HB 5321 is, with the exception of the paragraphs regarding abolition of the 1973 version of the Aiken Public Service Authority, a near carbon copy of Act 542.

City Government, Development Issues, February 2026, Wastewater

The City of Aiken’s First-Come First-Served Sewer Capacity Policy.

11 Comments

Aiken County’s sewer processing capacity is a very finite resource, and the number one limitation on growth in the County, and thus, the City of Aiken. The County operates the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant and sells a portion of its processing capacity to the City of Aiken and several other utilities, including the City of North Augusta and Valley Public Service Authority.

Until now, the City of Aiken Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Manager, and Aiken City Council has treated it like an infinite resource, with Council ultimately granting every sewer service request from outside the City during this decade. Even following the news in the first half of 2024 that Aiken County had sold more than 95 percent of its permitted sewer capacity and the City itself was overallocated, the City of Aiken proceeded with business as usual, even granting sewer allocations to several more out-of-town developments constituting more than 1,200 homes—a total administrative commitment by the City amounting to more than 0.3 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater flow.

At its January 12, 2026 Work Session, Aiken City Council and the public were informed that the City’s future additional allocation from the County’s current wastewater plant expansion would be 40 percent lower — down to 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) from the previously assumed 2.5 MGD. In addition, it was disclosed to Council that the City had only 0.41 MGD of remaining processing capacity from its current allocation with the County. At the same time, the City has at least 0.50 MGD of immediate claims against that remaining gallonage awaiting approval from the Aiken Public Service Authority, leaving a current 90,000 gallons per day deficit. That deficit is arguably significantly larger when considering all the sewer service approvals made by City Council over the past few years that are not accounted for in the 0.50 MGD schedule.

These other Council-approved projects, not yet counted for, are direct demands on the City’s share of the upcoming 1.5 MGD of expanded processing capacity. An analysis of the already Council-approved projects that will be serviced from the future 1.5 MGD is made far worse when new projects currently under review by the Planning Department are also taken into consideration. It appears that Aiken’s capacity to meet future needs is extremely limited.

Despite these disclosures, the City’s sewer policy is still operating on a first-come, first-served basis; not on an in-City project priority basis.

by Don Moniak
February 22, 2026

Since the late 2010’s, the City of Aiken has been aggressively expanding the extent of its sewer and water distribution system; and continues to grant further expansion despite limitations on capacity available from the Aiken County Public Service Authority (PSA).

This expansion has not been accompanied by an increase in sewer capacity. Aiken does not have its own wastewater treatment system, and is reliant upon the Aiken County Horse Creek Wastewater Plant (HCWP)—which is operated by the PSA— for its processing needs. As a customer of the PSA, the City must pay the fees recommended by the PSA and approved by Aiken County Council.

In early 2024, an audit of the plant’s then-permitted capacity of 20 million gallons per day found that the wastewater processing capacity already purchased was nearly at the permitted limit.

No clear public summary of the situation resulting from the audit has ever been issued, but a May 2024 memo (Figure 1) from County Administrator Brian Sanders to Aiken County Council provides the most salient details—the County had sold all but 30,000 gallons a day of its physical and permitted capacity of 20 million gallons a day (MGD). A 6.0 MGD expansion would allow the sale of additional capacity to provide something of a stopgap measure until the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant is further expanded. According to one engineering firm, that future total could be as high as 40 MGPD. (It is important to note that the plant is currently processing about 12 MGPD on average, of which more than half derives from the City of Aiken.)

Figure 1. May 2024 Email from County Administrator Brian Sanders to Aiken County Council. The referenced tables from the audit can be found through this link. (click to enlarge)

The County also recognized that it was not recovering the actual costs of its processing, as it had not raised rates since 2012. In response, County Council approved a 62 percent increase, from $1.50 per thousand gallons to $2.41 per thousand gallons, for sewer treatment processing.

The bad news for the City of Aiken was contained in a subsequent email from County Administrator Brian Sanders to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, in which Sanders wrote that there had been a “major breakdown of communications between the County and DHEC during the permitting process.” According to the audit, the City of Aiken was permitted nearly 0.4 MGPD above its allocated amount since 2012. The good news was that an accounting adjustment added another 1.03 MGPD, leaving the City at that time with 0.64 MGPD of available capacity.

Figure 2. Email from Aiken County Administrator Brian Sanders to Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. (Source: July 8, 2024, Aiken City Council Work Session Agenda Packet). (click to enlarge)


Several months later, following a closed-door Executive Session, County Council approved a massive fee increase for capacity connections (the one-time fee for new capacity purchases). The increase functions as a de facto impact fee, one achieved without any public hearings or public scrutiny.

The rate rose from $0.49 per gallon per day to $10.89 per gallon per day. For example, at an average of 300 gallons per day per home, the new fee increased costs for a 100-home development requiring sewer connections from ~$15,000 to ~$317,000.

Aiken’s Recent Sewer and Water District Growth

The City of Aiken has been expanding its utilities systems and services in two manners—-to grow the City and to grow its sewer and water business.

Expanding Sewer Services to Grow the City

Efforts to grow the City have largely involved annexing contiguous tracts for high-density developments. In addition, there have been a few in-city developments.

The most notable of these is the commitment to developers within the Powderhouse Connector project area, where the City essentially traded sewer connections for road rights-of-way. (See Development Road for more details.)

Aiken has also provided services to several other developments that required annexation, including a district of low-income and affordable apartment complexes in the Dougherty Road area, the May Royal Drive development, which involves more than 200 homes, and another 150-home subdivision along Highway 19.

Expanding Sewer Services to Grow the Business

More notably, Aiken has grown its sewer business by providing sewer and water services well outside the City limits. In doing so, it imposed its urban/suburban growth model upon County residents accustomed to life away from high-density developments, high-impact industries, and relatively high peak-hour traffic. The business growth model also imposed costs upon the County, most notably upon emergency response and volunteer fire resources. (1)

One of the most questionable expansions is eight miles north of the City limits in the area of Interstate 20’s Exit 18. As reported in Aiken Takes on Exit 18, the City has embarked on an expansion that would extend nearly two miles west of Verenes Business/Industrial Park, involving a $3.5 million sewer lift station, and potentially provide sewer services for more than a thousand acres of development—some of it adjacent to or within the City’s Brunswick Tract that was obtained to protect its Shaw Creek water supply; and all of it well beyond any future hopes for annexation.

The planned, but at this point only attempted, growth around Exit 18–six miles north of City limits—also involved a secretive effort known as Project Unicorn, widely acknowledged as an effort to lure the Buc-cee’s company to establish its presence in Aiken County. The status of that project is unknown, but it is still rumored to be in the offering.

The City also pursued, in conjunction with the County, the unpopular notion of providing up to 1.5 MGD of sewer capacity for the proposed House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, and even voted 6-1 in favor of an Ordinance to provide utility services during its First (and only) Reading. Ultimately, the proposal was defeated when a critical mass of citizen objections meshed with the aforementioned sudden and surprising realization by the County that its sewer processing capacity was nearly fully allocated. (see Sewer Capacity Makes the News).

Similarly, there have also been smaller efforts at sewer-line extensions that could lead to larger developments upwards of ten miles north of City limits. The most notable example is the 7-11 gas station at Exit 22, where the City spent more than a million dollars to extend sewer and water lines across the Interstate, where the 7-11 is, at this point, the only beneficiary of that largesse. (see The Public Costs of a 7-11 Store).

All of the above-mentioned developments occurred prior to mid 2024, and before the surprising findings of the capacity audit.

However, since that time the City’s Planning Commission has recommended, and City Council has approved, sewer services for three new subdivisions: Creighton Meadows (August 2024, 250 homes six miles north of City limits next to the Shaw Plant on Frontage Road) Bridge Creek (January 2025, 725 homes one mile north of City limits along Hwy 19), and Bedford Place (January 2025, 93 homes, four miles north of City limits along Columbia Highway/Hwy 1 N). The issue of the City’s limited remaining sewer capacity never entered the approval equation for these proposed subdivisions, where annexation is generally a distant dream.

This largesse has now contributed to an even greater pinch in sewer allocations for new developments.

The 2026 Reality Check

The present reality was addressed at the January 12, 2026 Aiken City Council Work Session, where City Engineer Thomas Parrot outlined the City’s sewer capacity problems. The highlights of his slide presentation, which can be viewed in the agenda packet and heard in this audio, include the following highlights:

1. The City was notified in early 2024 (around the time of the Chicken Plant controversy) that its “remaining allocation (at the plant) was fully committed.”

2. The City only has 0.41 million gallons per day (MGD) of remaining existing capacity, but there are an immediate “~0.5 million gallons per day” of development needs with capacity approval by the PSA currently pending. That leaves a present deficit of 90,000 GPD. The City is negotiating with the County to obtain a potential credit of 0.1 MGD from previously approved projects that are now stalled or abandoned, which would leave it with a slight surplus.

3. The County has only agreed to sell the City 1.5 MGD of new capacity after its 6.0 MGD Sewer Plant expansion is completed next year. This is 1.0 MGD less than the 2.5 MGD City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh told City Council in June 2025 (Pages 456 to 474) was necessary to meet current and future demands.

4. The City implemented a policy in July 2025 to make developers pay the upfront cost of the $10.89 per gallon connection fee (although there is no record of City Council approving such a policy (2)

5. Council was told that sewer service approvals are operated on a “first come first served basis.”

6. Staff recommended that Council pass an Ordinance requiring that a Sewer Impact Fee be assessed for all projects outside of the city that are not yet approved for sewer. (3)

However, data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request shows that while there is an immediate approved project’s need for 0.5 MGDP, the capacity promised by the City Council easily exceeds that figure.

In a document titled CMO Project Spreadsheet, the list of projects ranging from the preconceptual to working review stage that require PSA sewer capacity approval is nearly 0.65 MGPD, more than the 0.5 MGPD reported during the Work Session.

According to City Engineer Thomas Parrott, the 0.5 MGPD is a “planning estimate,” while the 0.65 MGPD “reflects a snapshot of the spreadsheet” that may include “preliminary numbers that are intentionally conservative,” projects at different stages of definition concept,” values that may be updated as plans change, or are on the list but “are not yet at a point where a formal capacity request would be made.”

In addition, no allocation figure is identified for the proposed 705-home Bridge Creek subdivision, for which City Council approved sewer and water in January 2025; and only Phase I of Creighton Meadows (147 homes out of 247 approved in August 2024) is listed in the spreadsheet. In total, ~850 homes are left out of the equation. This commitment by Council could eventually add up to as much as 0.25 MGPD of the 1.5 MGPD in additional capacity.

According to Mr. Parrott, no capacity is listed for Bridge Creek because the City “has not received a formal, usable submittal or a defined phase with enough information to quantify flow.” However, the Sewer and Water Services Agreement has been recorded with the County’s Register of Deeds; and a $40 million lawsuit filed this week against the City argues that such a recording constitutes a long-lived approval by the City and not one that expires (4).

The worksheet also contains a list of commercial projects, but has no sewer data associated with those businesses.

Completely missing from the project list are smaller developments like planned public school expansions and downtown developments.

All this begs the immediate question: why were the Planning Department and Planning Commission allowed to keep accepting and processing applications that required new sewer connections and allocations well outside of city limits? A second question is why City staff, not City Council, is setting policy, particularly the unwritten “first-come, first-served” policy? And a third question on many minds is why there is zero discussion at the Council level of a temporary moratorium on new sewer service for developments well outside of the City limits, at least until City Council can define some priorities that set the standard for which developments receive the benefit of this very finite resource?

Figure 3: Aerial view of the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant near Beech Island, SC. From Brasfield and Gorrie. Expansion area is in center of photo.


Footnotes:

(1) During a Planning Commission workshop last fall, County Development Director Joel Duke described the adverse impacts on the County from the sprawl enabled by the sewer and water expansion policy. These include strains on law enforcement, emergency response, and volunteer fire departments. The Center Fire Department has borne the brunt of this expansion in terms of emergency fire and accident response, and the City of Aiken has made no effort to pay its share of the increased costs.

(2) There was no such item on City Council’s agenda at its only July 2025 meeting.

Section 44-5(b) of the Municipal Code requires developers to pay a $400 per housing unit sewer facilities charge, which works out to only ~$1.25/gallon. There are no apparent plans to repeal this fee.

The new $ 10.89-per-gallon charge mandated by the County and now in effect is not yet part of the City Code.

It is unclear whether the City was authorized by Council to pass the costs of the de facto impact fee along to developers.

(3) The First Reading of the Public Hearing for a Sewer Capacity Impact Fee Ordinance will be held Monday, February 23, 2026 during Aiken City Council’s Regular Meeting. Information and comment opportunities for the Ordinance can be found on a dedicated City web page.

(4) This past week Crowell and Company filed a $40 million breach of trust lawsuit against the City of Aiken. At issue is whether a sewer service approval for a 60-acre parcel along Toolebeck Road, granted by City Council in 2020, is still valid. A key element of the lawsuit is the assertion that the recording of the sewer services agreement, which was signed by City officials, confers a long-term right to that service, one that does not expire as long as other conditions are met.