All posts by donaldmoniak

Aiken County, July 2024, Savannah River Site, Taxation

The DOE/SRS Payment in Lieu of Taxes:

2 Comments

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

DOE has been paying this same nominal amount since 2009.

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

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

by Don Moniak
July 24, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The PiLT at SRS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The $1.6 Million Aiken County PiLT payment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Footnotes

(1) Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) 

The South Carolina Department of Revenue summarizes FILOT as: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

City Government, Forests, July 2024, Parks & Recreation

1979: An Aiken Tree Story

4 Comments

by Don Moniak
July 22, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Unauthorized Tree Removal of 1979

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawyering Up

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

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

In his concluding paragraph, Mr. Rich wrote:

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

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

Screenshot
Screenshot

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

Postscript:

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

Aiken County, Aiken County Government, July 2024, taxation

The One-Percent Sales Tax Referendum Public Hearing

2 Comments

And other Aiken County Council meetings details.

by Don Moniak
July 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other County Council Business

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

Following that is the Monthly Financial Report.

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

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

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

The Monthly Reports  include status updates pertaining to: 

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

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

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

Footnote

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

City Government, Freedom of Information, July 2024, Legal

An “Abrupt Departure” and A Defunded and Disbanded Department

10 Comments

On December 5, 2023; then-City of Aiken Economic Development Director Timothy O’Briant was terminated by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. By day’s end the termination was classified as a voluntary resignation.

Six months after O’Briant’s abrupt departure, Aiken City Council approved a Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget that defunded and disbanded the four-year old Economic Development department.

by Don Moniak
July 3, 2024
(updated July 26, 2024)

On December 5, 2023, former Aiken Economic Development Director Timothy O’Briant reportedly resigned, without notice, from his position with the City of Aiken. It was the City’s most notable high-level employee departure since City Manager John Klimm resigned in early 2018.

The resignation occurred nearly three years after the Aiken Standard had dubbed O’Briant as the “Economic Development Czar.” In his other capacity of Executive Director of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission, O’Briant was the primary orchestrator of Project Pascalis; perhaps the most controversial, and certainly the most ill-fated and expensive, economic redevelopment plan in City of Aiken history.

In a brief January 8, 2024, story on O’Briant’s new position as Administrator for the City of Pickens, SC, Aiken Standard reporter Matthew Hensley noted that “O’Briant didn’t discuss his abrupt departure from Aiken city government on Dec. 5 or some of the circumstances that preceded it, an arc that stretched from the controversy surrounding the failed Project Pascalis to the mayor he served, Rick Osbon, meeting his ouster in Teddy Milner.”

As explained in Much More than a Figurehead, city employees serve at the pleasure of the Aiken City Manager. Neither the Mayor nor the rest of City Council can legally interfere in personnel matters, except “for the purposes of investigation and inquiry.” Mr. O’Briant was not an exception to this aspect of Aiken Municipal Code; he did not answer directly to the Mayor of Aiken or to City Council as a whole.

Records obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (1) to the City of Aiken provide insights into an eight-month chain of events in 2023 that led City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh to compel Tim O’Briant to abruptly depart the City’s payroll.

The paper trail shows that, prior to submitting his resignation letter on December 5, 2023, Mr. O’Briant was asked to resign by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. The justification for this action was that O’Briant had used the power of his official position to obtain city property, in this case a city security surveillance video, and then used it for personal use in a private lawsuit. Bedenbaugh alleged the video was obtained under false pretenses; an assertion that was vigorously challenged by O’Briant.

However, the mere use of a city record for personal gain is a violation of the City’s Employee Handbook; in which the Code of Ethics mandates that employees “refrain from using their positions for personal gain and keep confidential all information not available to all citizens that is acquired by virtue of their position.”

Furthermore, Section 2-3 of the Aiken Municipal Code states that:

It shall be unlawful for any person to take any record from any municipal office of the city, without the consent of the officer having control of such records.

When O’Briant failed to resign, Mr. Bedenbaugh, who is the officer with final say over city records, terminated him. Only five minutes after Bedenbaugh notified City Council of his termination decision, O’Briant submitted a resignation letter to Bedenbaugh. Later in the day, he emailed Bedenbaugh to dispute the claim that he’d surreptitiously obtained the confidential city property, and cc’ed that email to City Council. By the end of the day, Bedenbaugh had agreed to reclassify the departure as a voluntary resignation.

The next day, O’Briant wrote to Bedenbaugh to request a severance pay package. His email contained an implied threat of a lawsuit against the City for wrongful termination. Ultimately, a severance agreement was reached and a payout of up to $36,500 was made—although the final amount has not been confirmed.

Six months later, City Council approved the City’s Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget. Other than carryover funds from the previous year, the Economic Development Department was defunded. The remaining staff of one was transferred back to the City Manager’s office, where economic development tasks originally were managed prior to the formation of the new department in January 2020.

The Paper Trail

The chain of events leading to Mr. O’Briant’s departure from the City payroll began on April 17, 2023. The information is presented in chronological order, but the full chronology—particularly the events prior to April 27, 2023—was not fully known until mid-May 2024.
(Updated July 26, 2024 with additional documentation obtained since Jun3 1, 2024.

April 17, 2023. After receiving an unwritten request, City of Aiken IT Director Robert Popenhagen provided O’Briant with security surveillance video footage of City Council chambers from Council’s April 10th meeting. The request was made in-house, not via a written FOIA request made as a private citizen.

(The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (SC FOIA) specifically identifies such security surveillance video as not subject to public disclosure; it does not even qualify as a public record under FOIA:

“ Information relating to security plans and devices proposed, adopted, installed, or utilized by a public body, other than amounts expended for adoption, implementation, or installation of these plans and devices, is required to be closed to the public and is not considered to be made open to the public under the provisions of this act.” (SC 30-4-20(c))

Indeed, in response to FOIA requests, the City has at least twice cited this provision when denying public access to City Council Chambers surveillance videotapes.)

In a brief April 17th email exchange with O’Briant, Popenhagen also referred a second unwritten request from O’Briant for body camera footage of the post-adjournment period of the April 10th meeting to Aiken Public Safety (Figure 1).

Twenty minutes later (Figure 2, paragraph one), O’Briant filed a FOIA request to the City, from a private email account, for the body camera footage, asking that it be preserved “as potential evidence in pending or imminent civil litigation” (Figure 2, paragraph two).

April 21, 2023. Aiken City Solicitor Laura Jordan, who serves as the City’s FOIA Officer, denied the FOIA request. Since SC law only allows release of body camera footage by law enforcement agencies, she also referred O’Briant to the Aiken Department of Public Safety, (Figure 2, paragraph 3).

Figure 1. Email from IT Director Robert Popenhagen pertaining to the availability of body camera footage from the April 10th City Council meeting. Prior to this email, Popenhagen had provided O’Briant, in his official position, with security surveillance video footage of the meeting. There was no FOIA request filed. Six months later, Aiken City Manager would assert in a response to an actual FOIA request that city staff did not intend to convey the video for O’Briant’s personal use (see Figures 3 and 4).

Under SC FOIA, surveillance footage such as this is specifically “required to be closed.” Access to such video could provide parties with malicious intent with critical insights on security vulnerabilities. (click to enlarge)

Figure 2. Response to FOIA request made by Tim O’Briant, that includes the original request. SC Code 23-1-240(G)(1) states that “Data recorded by a body-worn camera is not a public record subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.” SC 23-1-240(G)(5) allows for certain private parties to obtain body camera footage, “pursuant to the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure, the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, or a court order.” These parties include “a person who is the subject of the recording,” and “a civil litigant if the recording is relevant to a pending civil action.”

The definition of a “pending” civil action is a lawsuit that has been filed, but is still in the litigation process. There is no mention of “imminent” civil action in the SC Code. As such, O’Briant arguably had no statutory right to the body camera footage, as there was no “pending” civil action, and he was not the subject of the footage. However, the law does provide some discretion to law enforcement agencies. (click to enlarge)


April 27, 2023. O’Briant vs Moniak and Eureka Research, LLC was filed in the Second Judicial Circuit’s Court of Common Pleas. The lawsuit alleged slander and libel, in part based on discussions made during the post-adjournment period of the April 10th meeting. City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh assured City Council in an email that the lawsuit was filed as a private individual, and not as a city employee (The Complaint and subsequent filings are available at O’Briant vs Moniak et al).

(Updated, 7/26/24: In responses to two FOIA requests, City Solicitor Jordan acknowledged withholding emails between O’Briant and his personal attorney that involved the lawsuit; meaning that O’Briant was conducting personal business of a legal nature though his city email account—-see Footnote 1).

November 3, 2023. The surveillance video footage (3) of the April 10, 2023, Aiken City Council meeting was introduced and shown by the Plaintiff during the Defendant’s Deposition.

November 13, 2023. A Freedom of Information Act request was filed for the following city records:

“1. Copy or copies of the City of Aiken’s protocol, procedure, rule, or any other record that governs usage, distribution, availability, retention, and disposition of City of Aiken Municipal Building surveillance videos, including but not limited to Aiken City Council Chambers.

2. A copy of any subpoena, request for information , and/or FOIA request for all of, or part of, the surveillance video of Aiken City Council April 10, 2023 public meeting, taken from the back of near the back side of the room and facing Council.

3. A copy of the chain of custody record, letter of transfer, or any other record detailing the process by which the April 10, 2023 surveillance video of City Council Chambers, both during and/or after its public meeting, was provided to the law offices of John Harte.”

November 27, 2023. Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh personally responded to the FOIA request by writing that O’Briant had obtained the video without divulging his intent to use it in a personal civil action (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh’s official response to FOIA No. 374-2023. (click to enlarge)

Tuesday, December 5, 2024.

10:46 a.m. Bedenbaugh informed City Council members that he had terminated O’Briant’s employment, “effective immediately,” due to the procurement and use of the surveillance video for personal purposes (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The email from City Manager Bedenbaugh to Aiken City Council. (click to enlarge)

10:51 a.m. O’Briant emailed a resignation letter to Bedenbaugh. (Figure 5). The Aiken Standard quoted from the letter in a report published three days later.

Figure 5. The resignation without notice letter. The City of Aiken’s Employee Handbook states that, “Any City employee resigning from their position is expected to give at least a 2 week written notice to the Department Director. In addition, the employee is expected to complete an exit interview.” (click to enlarge)

1:34 p.m. Referring to Bedenbaugh’s email to Council, City Councilman Ed Girardeau wrote to O’Briant, in part, that “ Kay left a message that she was upset and Ed’s was what the F*** is going on?” (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Email from City Councilman Ed Girardeau. “This” referred to was the email conveying the termination, as seen in Figure 4. Kay appears to refer to Councilwoman Kay Brohl, and “Ed” to Councilman Ed Woltz. (click to enlarge)

2:52 p.m. O’Briant wrote to Bedenbaugh, cc’ed to all City Council, APS Chief Charles Barranco, assistant City Manager Mary Tilton, Human Resources Director Tracy Lott, and former Mayor Rick Osbon, disputing Bedenbaugh’s version of events (Figure 7).

(Update 7/26/24. In his letter, O’Briant alleged that Bedenbaugh was aware that the video had been obtained, and had been kept fully informed of the status of O’Briant vs Moniak. More emails recently obtained via FOIA do provide some support for the latter assertion. Three emails show that O’Briant was monitoring Moniak’s FOIA requests and forwarded via email three requests (See Footnote 4 for an example).

Figure 7. Letter from Tim O’Briant to Stuart Bedenbaugh. In the letter, Mr. O’Briant argued that the surveillance video was subject to release under SC FOIA rules, even though SC FOIA specifically states that security surveillance does not qualify as a public record subject to FOIA.

However, O’Briant never filed a FOIA request for the video, but instead obtained the video via his official city position, and for personal use. As such, the only issue is whether it was obtained under a surreptitious rationale. That issue remains in dispute; a case of “he said, he said.” (click to enlarge)


5:20 p.m. Mr. Bedenbaugh bcc’ed Council that:

“After I sent the below email, I received a follow up email from Tim requesting this matter classified as a resignation and I so accept that.”

Wednesday, December 6, 2024.

8:54 a.m. O’Briant emailed Bedenbaugh with a severance package request of $35,789 (Figure 8). The email also shows that a resignation was demanded prior to the termination (paragraph two) and subsequent reclassification as a resignation; O’Briant threatened a wrongful termination lawsuit, and Bedenbaugh’s termination email to City Council was twice referred to as “defamation.” Attached was a proposed Resignation Release and Covenant that eventually served as the basis for the final severance agreement.

Figure 8. Email requesting $35, 789 severance package, a threat to sue the City, and two allegations that Bedenbaugh had defamed O’Briant. (click to enlarge)

1:52 p.m. Bedenbaugh granted a portion of the severance package request while indicating approval of a sick leave payout and six week’s severance pay required Council approval (Figure 9).

Figure 9. The granting of part of the severance pay. (click to enlarge)

By the end of the day, Mr. O’Briant had provided a signed Covenant and Release that can be viewed here.

Friday, December 8, 2023. Bedenbaugh sent a severance package agreement to O’Briant and asked to concur. A request was made to first remove a clause barring future employment (Figure 10), which was later granted.

Figure 10. Emails indicating that the City had initially proposed a “no rehire” provision. (click to enlarge)


December 11, 2023. Following the end of its regular meeting, City Council met in closed-door Executive Session. The meeting minutes state that:

“Mayor Milner stated City Council will go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 30-4-70(a)(1) and (2) of the South Carolina Code for the discussion of employment, appointment, compensation, or promotion, of a person regulated by City Council and to receive legal advice where the legal advice relates to a pending, threatened, or potential claim or other matters covered by the attorney-client privilege, settlement of legal claims, or the position of the public agency in other adversary situations involving the assertion against the agency of a claim.

“Specifically, the City Council will receive legal advice regarding the possible settlement of a threatened claim against the City.”

Present at the meeting were:

City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh
City Attorney Gary Smith
City Clerk Sara Ridout
Assistant City Manager Mary Tilton
Aiken Public Safety Director Charles Barranco
City Solicitor Laura Jordan,
IT Director Robert Popenhagen
Human Resources Director Tracy Lott.

The minutes of the meeting are sealed, as allowed by SC FOIA, but the subject was most likely the matter of O’Briant’s departure from the city payroll and the associated threat of a civil action or other legal claim against the City.

Defunding and Disbanding the Department

On June 10, 2024, Aiken City Council approved the City’s budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. The Economic Development Department budget showed only carryover funds from the previous year. No funds were allocated for salaries.

At City Council’s special May 5, 2024, budget work session, Councilman Ed Girardeau noted the proposed change in the City’s organizational structure (Figure 11 ). According to the meeting minutes:

“Councilman Girardeau noted the Economic Development funding over the years and the request for funding for FY 2024 – 25. He asked for an explanation of the funding for Economic Development. Mr. Bedenbaugh stated we have moved some of the expenses to the City Manager’s Office. Ms. Rooks pointed out that the $1.7 million in FY 2023-24 includes the $750, 000 for Kershaw and $400,000 for Williamsburg from Plutonium funds that was designated for Williamsburg and Kershaw Projects.”

No other Council members reportedly objected to the abrupt change in direction. There was never any subsequent discussion of the disbanding and defunding of the Economic Development Department during an additional Council work session, nor during the two public hearings leading up to Council’s approval of the budget on June 10th.

The decision to defund also meant the end of hospitality tax allocations to the Economic Development Department. The department had been entrusted with $323,458 in FY 2022-2023, and budgeted $244,955 in FY 2023-2024. (Figure 12)

Figure 11. The FY 2024-2025 approved by the Aiken City Council on June 10, 2024, showing the end of funding for the Economic Development Department. The budget can be found in the June 10, 2024 Council meeting agenda packet . (click to enlarge)

Figure 12. Portions of the Hospitality Tax budget data for the past three years. (click to enlarge)


Footnotes:

(1) This story remains incomplete due to the City’s classification of numerous emails as “exempt pursuant to S.C. Code 30-4-40(a)(7). Exemption seven pertains to “correspondence or work products of legal counsel for a public body and any other material that would violate attorney-client relationships.”

Among the email records that were exempted was correspondence, via his city email account, between “Mr. O’Briant and his personal legal counsel.” (Figure 13). (Update, 7/26/24: In the response to FOIA request 102-2024 for emails FROM O’Briant between May 1, 2023 and August 30, 2023, City Solicitor Jordan wrote that “There were 50 emails that were withheld as being exempt (due to attorney-client privilege) from disclosure. (Some) emails to and from personal counsel did involve O’Briant v. Moniak.”

Figure 13. Response to FOIA request 393-2023. Ms. Jordan would later state there were eight emails in total that were exempted from this FOIA response. The response shows that Mr. O’Briant was utilizing his city email account, and thus in his official capacity, to communicate with his attorney regarding a private lawsuit. (click to enlarge)

(2) Five FOIA requests in total were submitted in regard to, or related to, this issue; but also served as investigative material for other topics, such as the $20 million SRNL project. Links to the FOIA requests and records provided in the responses are as follows:

#373-2024

#393-2023

#403-2023.

#17-2024

#30-2024

#35-2024

#102-2024


Also, on March 5, 2024, the Author made a formal request to Aiken Public Safety, as well as questions regarding the tapes, for access to the body camera footage. Two months later the request was resubmitted and subsequently honored on May 13, 2024. The video, which did not validate any of the Plaintiff’s allegations, could be described as follows:

“A police officer is seen standing next to Moniak in a non-confrontational manner. The officer asked the City Manager and Mayor when the next meeting is scheduled. The answer was April 24, 2024. The officer advised Moniak that he could speak again at that time. Moniak responded, ‘sure, sure, you bet,’ and left the room peaceably.”

(3) The surveillance video could be described as:

“People milled about Council Chambers after adjournment. O’Briant and Moniak could be seen having a short discussion. Moniak approached City Council and entered into a discussion. At the same time, O’Briant departed Chambers through the private door leading to the room where Council holds Executive Sessions. Shortly thereafter, two Aiken Public Safety Officers entered the room and one approached Moniak. Another brief discussion ensued between city officials, the officer, and Moniak; who could then be seen leaving peaceably.”

(4) FOIA 181-2023 (Figure 14) was forwarded to Bedenbaugh one hour and seventeen minutes after it was filed.

Figure 14.

The responses to this FOIA were the topic of Aiken City Council Rules of Order; The story documented how two City Council members criticized another Council member via private, behind-the-back text messages; all during a public meeting.


City Government, Development Issues, July 2024, Public Safety

Overriding Public Safety

9 Comments


How Aiken City Council, a Developer, and Public Safety sparred over less than an acre of land. The Developer won round one.

by Don Moniak
July 2, 2024
(Updated* July 5, 2024)

On Monday, June 26, 2024, , Aiken City Council voted 5-2 to give initial approval to a 38-acre residential subdivision that is a part of a larger, 49-acre development called Rutland Place. The approval included a Zoning Ordinance waiver for building separation on 16 acres of the property where single-family detached homes are proposed. The waiver will allow the developer to locate two-story homes within fifteen feet of each other instead of the minimum of twenty feet required by ordinance.

Aiken Public Safety and the City Fire Marshall had expressed objections to the waiver months ago, and continued to express objections and concerns—which were also documented in the Planning Commission’s recommendation Memorandum to Council. Following a 37-minute discussion between Public Safety, the Developer VIP Riverside, and Council, the waiver was approved. In doing so, firefighter safety and fire protection took a back seat to the economic demands of a housing developer.

The subtraction of the five feet of separation that would provide a safer space in any necessary firefighting efforts amounts to less than an acre of land for the developer, or about 2-3 homes. For firefighters, it is a loss of five feet of safe space in an already tight firefighting environment.

by Don Moniak
July 2, 2024

by Don Moniak

In December 2022 Aiken City Council approved a 330-unit residential subdivision named “Aiken Village.” The proposal involved 68 build-to-rent, single-story, multi-family story, townhomes with a total of 330 housing units on a 49.3-acre tract bounded by Rutland Drive and Hwy 19 North (Edgefield Highway).

That project was pursued by the owner of the property, North Augusta based VP Riverside, LLC. The company’s plan was to obtain approval for the plan and then sell the property to a developer, but the project never moved forward.

Instead, VP Riverside came back with a new plan this year, one that provides both a new residential subdivision and commercial development across from Aiken High School that is more appropriately named “Rutland Place” (Figure 1). Once again, VP Riverside is seeking the less typical process of seeking approval from City Council and then selling the property with its plans to a developer.

Figure 1: Location of proposed “Rutland Place” development, also showing Aiken High School. As described in “This is Wrong for That Property,” the area endures heavy traffic during peak hours, which can inhibit emergency response times.


Like Aiken Village, the Rutland Place development requires rezoning and Concept Plan approval for two separate but connected plans. The property is not being subdivided. There will be two zoning designations within the same 49.3 acres. Therefore, two approvals by City Council are necessary for the same property (see pages 261 to 340 of the 6/24/24 City Council agenda packet for information on the First Reading of the Public Hearing to provide initial approvement of the project).

First, a rezoning to Planned Commercial (PC), and an associated PC Concept Plan, for an 11.4-acre portion of the tract; where a Tractor Supply store and up to five other yet-to-be-named businesses are planned.

Secondly, a rezoning to Planned Residential (PR), and an associated PR Concept Plan, for the remaining 38-acre portion of the property. There, the proposal is for 210 single-family, detached, two-story homes (two-family townhomes) on 22.4 acres, and 59 single-family, detached homes (Figure 2) on 15.6 acres—an overall housing density of 7.1 units per acre.

Figure 2; Rendering of single-family detached homes proposed for Rutland Place, across from Aiken High School. The developer has sought a building separations waiver for the 59 home, 15.6-acre portion of the larger 49.3-acre development, of which 38.0 acres is residential and 11.3 acres is commercial.



In its development application, VP Riverside requested a waiver for the 59 detached single-family homes, asking for 15 feet between homes instead of the minimal 20 feet set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The difference involved with the five-foot waiver, area wise, is at most three-quarters of an acre.

As a justification for the waiver, VP Riverside cited a correlation between increased home density and home affordability, and claimed the plan was more in line with Aiken’s Comprehensive Plan’s guidance for improved walkability—itself an interesting argument since a waiver was also being granted to remove a section of sidewalk.

Although the Planning Commission had voted 5-0 to recommend the developments, it did not recommend the buildings separation waiver. In its memorandum to City Council (pages 305 to 313), the Commission cited concerns raised by the City Fire Marshall and Aiken Public Safety during the earliest stages of the approval process; concluding that VIP Riverside should comply with the building separations provision of the ordinance. Specifically, the memo read, in part,that:

“Zoning Ordinance Sec 4.2.6.E states that no single story building shall be erected within 15 feet of any other single story building and no multi-story building shall be erected within 20 feet of any other building. The (applicant’s) project narrative requests a waiver to establish an alternative standard 7.5’ side setback. The Fire Marshal has commented that Public Safety is opposed to the setback request waiver which would allow detached side setbacks at 7.5’, which allows for 15’ between homes, due to concerns with exposure fires and firefighter safety.

Public Safety requests adherence to the minimum building separation depicted in the Zoning Ordinance. Approval should include a condition that the required building separations be met per the Zoning Ordinance.” Approval should include a condition that the required building separations be met per the Zoning Ordinance.” (Original underlined emphasis).

The process leading to City Council’s June 24th decision to waive the building spacing requirement was confusing, complex and legislatively untidy, as this 6/28/24 letter to Mayor Teddy Milner and City Council illustrates.

The lengthy waiver debate began just as Council was about to approve the project, which itself had involved a 20-minute discussion. At that point, VP Riverside co-partner and former North Augusta City Manager Todd Glover returned to the podium and stated “I need to have the waiver more definitive.”

A 37-minute discussion (beginning at the 2:07:00 mark) ensued that culminated in a 5-2 vote to approve the project and the waiver, with Mayor Teddy Milner and Councilman Ed Woltz dissenting.

Five feet may not seem like much, but Public Safety and the City’s head Building Inspector explained the justification for the minimal spacing requirement—firefighter safety and defense of adjacent structures in the event of a fire.

Building Inspector Mike Jordan, who has extensive firefighting experience himself, and Aiken Public Safety Captain Brian Brazier, who also serves as the City’s Fire Marshall, took turns explaining why five feet is important.

Jordan explained that the 20 feet of spacing was necessary to keep any fire from more easily spreading from the area of origin to more structures; keeping the fire within a single structure. He stated, in part, that:

“I can tell you personally, on the ground, (five feet) is a lot, especially with multi-story structures. If we need a ladder, that distance is critical. The police department years ago worked with that (ordinance process) to establish those separations for protection from fire, to try to isolate to individual structure and keep the fire from burning up multiple homes.”

That latter effort resulted in a higher standard in Aiken than in other municipalities like North Augusta—whose Development Ordinance only requires ten feet between homes for “small lot” and “medium lot” housing developments.

In defense of the waiver, Mr. Glover (Figure 3) made two interesting arguments. First, he somewhat denigrated his firm’s now defunct Aiken Village Concept Plan by stating that “I think the 330 town homes that we crammed in there the first time was maximizing the density.” (The plan actually called for 330 multifamily units across 68 single-story townhomes).

Then he cited his own experience as a resident of North Augusta’s Hammonds Ferry neighborhood, where homes are often separated by only ten feet within a grid with very narrow streets that makes firefighting even more challenging—essentially suggesting that Aiken should set a precedent of lowering its standards to that of North Augusta’s.

(The Second Reading of the Public Hearing that would provide final approval for the process is scheduled for Council’s July 8, 2024 public meeting.)

Figure 3: VP Riverside co-parter Todd Glover defending his waiver request to City Council. Glover is also currently the Executive Director of the powerful and influential Municipal Association of South Carolina, which is funded by local governments from around SC. (From archived City of Aiken You Tube livestream video. )


APS Captain and Fire Marshall Brian Brazier then provided another justification for the 20-foot rule, that home interior materials, as well as some home construction materials, can and do burn hotter and faster than in the past:

“I said when we first started this we are charged with protecting life and property with the understanding that a fire in a residence in today’s world flashes in three to five minutes, which means the whole room is consumed that rapidly due to the type of materials we’re putting in our homes.

As we keep building these houses closer together it’s going to get worse. I mean it’s proven science that fires flash quicker they burn hotter than they ever have before, because of the materials that we’re putting in them, and that’s why some of of this separation is in place to keep our people safe but to protect property.” 

One summary of the science from 2016 describes and illustrates research by UL Laboratories that concludes that commonly used modern building materials and most modern home furnishing are generally more conducive to fire spread, adding that, “Research shows that 30 years ago, you had about 17 minutes to escape a house fire. Today it’s only 3 or 4 minutes.”

Aiken Public Safety Chief Charles Barranco was the final speaker, and expressed support for his Captain and the Building Inspector Jordan, while issuing a warning to City Council that it would be setting a precedent for future developers. He stated, in part, that:

“The Captain is right, as fires burn faster hotter and time is always an issue to um to try to put that fire out….we have about 40 to 45 fires true fires a year and getting them when they are very small is happening less and less.  So we wanted to bring you the information because I’m not that aware that planning or the building official or anybody from Public Safety has ever waived these (requirements) before…whatever you decide you are setting a precedent.” 

Council then discussed the situation before approving the waiver with the 5-2 vote, with the usual perspective that “we need the housing” being the higher priority.

But in this case, the amount of additional housing is negligible, about three homes in a 259-unit subdivision. Council spent nearly forty minutes haggling with its own Public Safety leadership over less than an acre. It then chose to grant an exemption to the City’s higher minimal standards for fire protection, putting the demands of the property owner and future developer before the safety of its own firefighters and over the objections of Aiken Public Safety and its Planning Commission.

Screenshot

Figure 4: Aiken Public Safety Chief Charles Barranco and APS Captain and Fire Marshall Brian Brazier speaking to Aiken City Council on 6/24 in support of maintaining a safer distance between homes. From archived City of Aiken You Tube livestream video.

Footnote

* Following is additional information from the draft meeting minutes. It is rare to anomalous for minutes to not be approved as final.

a. Regarding the final vote:

“Councilwoman Price moved, seconded by Councilwoman Diggs, that Council approve on first reading an ordinance to rezone 38 acres located at Rutland Drive and Laurens Street to PR (Planned Residential) and approve the concept plan with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and grant a waiver of 5’ from 20’ to 15’ for the distance between two story structures. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor and 2 opposed. Mayor Milner and Councilman Woltz opposed the motion.”

Council members in favor were Lessie Price, Gail Diggs, Kay Brohl, Andrea Gregory, and Ed Girardeau.

b. There is an anonymous assertion on the comments section that the developer will be “Using ALL non-combustible products.”

This is an inaccurate statement. As the meeting minutes (pages 37-38 of the file) accurately reflect, the developer’s representative stated an intent to use non combustible materials, he did not commit to that approach, and left the door open to future changes. The representative also declined to disclose the name of the developer, which would enable Council and staff to investigate its track record.

The draft minutes state:

Bryan DeBruin, 16 Wellington Avenue, Greenville, SC, stated he represents the development group. They will purchase the property and intend to develop it. Regarding the specific question regarding the fire rating, we do infill development in four different counties now.

On the multi- family side, we do that. We have not had to do that on a residential home. We consider both single-family attached, townhomes as well as the attached product to be residential so they would not have sprinklers. They would meet the residential building code standards.

While it seems like a really easy fix just to create a higher standard on the rating, from a building perspective and affordability component every time you make a change to this product and every time you make a change to the home, there are a lot of other what ifs that happen such as the supply chain, etc.

He said he would be concerned and would not be able to give that assurance because we don’t know if we could do that and where that would go. It might be a harder hardship for the construction of the home to do it that way than it would be for the reduction of lots.

He said they were real excited. This will be our first project in Aiken. The advantage of this is that you get to balance density with the townhomes, with the single-family, and the attached product and that is not all one thing. When it comes all of one thing, either you are over dense or you are under dense and you are priced out a considerable amount of your residences. Having this waiver and variance on just the single-family detached aspect allows them to meet the density obligations that they will have to make for it to make sense financially while also delivering something that they will be proud of and the City will be proud of as well.”