Category Archives: Aiken County

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

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.

Details Matter Regarding Protecting Freedom of Speech

One of Aiken County Council’s July 15th public hearings took an unusual turn when the Council voted 6-2 to table a proposed ordinance to amend the manner in which it conducts business; for now voting on the side of The People. Most notable among the proposed changes are practices that could marginalize citizen engagement with their elected representatives.

(Editor’s note: Aiken County residents Vicki Simons and Don Moniak commented during the public hearing. Their full comments can be read here.)

by Don Moniak
July 22, 2025

On July 5, 2025, Aiken County government published a public notice in the Aiken Standard to announce the County Council’s July 15th Public Hearings. One of the public hearings was vaguely titled:

Ordinance Amending Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, Council, “Generally,” “Standing Committees,” “Rules of Procedure,” and “Preservation of Council Actions.”

Chapter 2 of the Aiken County Code governs the administration of county business. Article II addresses how the County Council conducts its business. It contains seemingly innocuous, routine rules, including the Order of Business during meetings, publication and distribution schedule of agendas, composition of committees, and completion of meeting minutes.

Most important to County residents– Article II defines the rules for concerned citizens to engage with, provide input to, and obtain information from their elected representatives on the County Council.

Presently, the four facets of these rules of public involvement are:

1. The open public comment period known as “The Informal Meeting of the Whole;” where citizens are alloted three minutes to speak to Council on any issue not already on the agenda. This is oftentimes the most informative and problem-solving portion of the meeting.
2. Public hearings; where citizens are alloted five minutes to address proposed ordinances.
3. Public presentations of up to fifteen minutes, if requested at least five days in advance.
4. The publication and distribution of County Council’s meeting agendas and associated documentation–collectively known as “the agenda packet.”

The Amendments, or Lack Thereof

On July 14th, the County Administrator’s office publicly released Council’s agenda packet for the July 15th meeting. According to the agenda, details of the Chapter 2 amendments were on pages 46-64.

On examination of those pages , details of the proposed amendments to Article II were absent. No strikeouts were present to indicate the language that was being stricken, and no text was underlined to indicate additions. Only the final amended version was presented.

To determine what changes were proposed, Council members and concerned citizens were required to cross-check the final amended ordinance with the existing ordinance.

Aiken County resident Vicki Simons discussed this oversight during the Public Hearing. She described how legislation routinely involves markings to show changes to South Carolina law–underlined text for additions and strikethroughs for deletions—before pointing out that “this ordinance is completely devoid of these markings.”

She went on to state that “this lack of transparency reflects badly on both Aiken County Government and the Aiken County Council.”

Marginalizing Citizen Input

One of the changes was easy to detect, and it was the most egregious. If the amendments were approved, county residents would have to wait until after any scheduled closed-door Executive Session—which can last for more than an hour—in order to present their ideas, thoughts, and concerns during the “Informal Meeting of the Whole.”

Article II, in its present form, places the Informal Meeting of the Whole towards the end of the meeting, but prior to any scheduled, closed-door Executive Session. The proposed amendments include reversing that order, so that people who come to speak to Council about a myriad of issues—-i.e. noise and light pollution, bad roads, stormwater runoff—would have to wait an additional undetermined length of time to speak their mind.


Ms. Simons addressed this issue by reminding Council that Aiken County is larger than the state of Rhode Island and “it takes considerable effort for Aiken County residents from outlying areas to attend meetings in person.”

She described the proposed reversal of the order of the Executive Session and IMOTW in two ways. First, she stated, “I strongly oppose this change because it would codify a marginalization of the very people whom you were elected to represent!”

After describing how people had to wait for more than an hour during the April 15, 2025, meeting for an Executive Session to end, she explained, “forcing people to wait to speak on matters important to them may be considered a form of censorship that undermines their Creator-endowed right of freedom of speech.”

Article II also allows for individuals or groups to request, in advance, time to make a presentation on their subject of choice to Council for up to 15 minutes during the Regular Meeting.

Officially, any public presentation must be on the regular meeting agenda; currently item 12 in the Order of Business. In practice, Council has been ignoring this rule for years by scheduling presentations either during committee meetings or work sessions. While work sessions tend to have large time windows to allow for 15-minute presentations in spacious Council chambers, committee meetings have very narrow time windows and are held in the tight confines of relatively tiny conference rooms.

Even though public presentations are uncommon, the amendments would result in further marginalization. The new timing would arguably censor citizens by shifting their presentation time from better-attended regular meetings held in spacious Council chambers to poorly attended committee meetings held in relatively tiny conference rooms—thus preventing a larger audience from hearing the message of presenters. Since Council still refuses to livestream its meetings or keep detailed meeting minutes, any message would, in practice, be largely unheard and lost in the largely inaccessible audio archives of Council meetings.

No Amendment to Improve Timely Information Access

The release of agendas determines how much time citizens have to be fully informed about what is actually being proposed at Council meetings.

Presently, Article II dictates that agenda packets be distributed to Council members on the Friday before the regular meetings, which are generally held on the third Tuesdays of the month, as well as the first Tuesdays from January to June.

However, these agenda packets are not made available to citizens and the media until the day before the meeting. Although Article II dictates that the packets must be released by 8:30 a.m. on Mondays, that is rarely the case. While this timeline meets the letter of the Open Meetings section of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, it clearly violates the spirit of the law by withholding completed agendas and agenda packets over the weekend.

There is no proposed change to allow citizens access to agendas and agenda packets on the same day Council members receives theirs—meaning that residents will still have to wait until the day before meetings before being able to review the large amounts of information pertaining to public hearings and other Council business.

The Vote

When it came time to vote, Councilman Mike Kellems made a Motion to Table the agenda item and send the proposed ordinance back to the County Administrator’s office for rework. Council then voted 6-2 to table–choosing to demand better information prior to moving forward on the ordinance amendments. This will require another public hearing.

The six who voted to table were Council members Ron Felder (District 1), Mike Kellems (District 2), Landon Ball (District 4), Sandy Haskell (District 5), Phil Napier (District 6), and P.K. Hightower (District 8).

Voting against tabling were Chairman Gary Bunker and Councilman Danny Feagan (District 3).

What is Next?

The effort to amend Article II is likely to return during the next Council meeting this August 19th. Aiken County residents can share their opinions on the rules governing citizen input and access to information by contacting Chairman Gary Bunker and their elected Council representative, or by attending the August 19th meeting and addressing the issues directly to Council.

The Up and Coming North Aiken Housing Boom

If all proposals come to fruition, seventeen housing developments between Richland Avenue and Interstate 20, within the City of Aiken’s water and sewer district, could result in 4,492 new housing units and more than 10,000 new residents to the area. The combined population of the two Northside City Council districts could grow by 50 percent.

by Don Moniak

May 25, 2025

Since 2020, Aiken City Council has been presented with, and approved, fifteen new housing development applications located between Richland Avenue and Interstate 20 that are within the City’s Sewer and Water District. Nearly every vote has been unanimous. Two more development applications that are currently pending have been recommended for approval by the city’s Planning Commission, and face almost certain unanimous approval by City Council.

In total, the seventeen developments* span 1,327 acres, involve twelve different developers, four large property annexations, and, if completed in full, will provide a total of 4,492 new housing units—2,994 single family homes, 796 townhouses, and 752 apartments (Table 1).

Only three apartment complexes comprising 416 units have been described as “affordable housing.” Much of the remainder has been described as “work force” housing on small lots (predominantly 0.125 to 0.2-acre lots), with purchase price quotes being most frequently in the $225 to $275 thousand range. Only Woodhaven and Coopers Place will have larger lot sizes and prices closer to $350-500K.

Just under half (2,158 units) of the total units are now within city limits or on lands recently, or soon to be, annexed. The remainder are situated on unincorporated county lands, but will be subject to annexation if the subdivisions become contiguous to the city (Table 2).

Using the 2020 census’ average household size of 2.4 people per home, the increase in population within the city’s Sewer and Water district–in the area between Richland Avenue and Interstate 20–from these developments alone could number about 10,780 new residents. In the short run, the population growth within the City of Aiken’s, due to both infill and annexed developments, could be around 5,200 new residents. All of this growth will be in Council Districts 1 and 2; where the combined existing population is reportedly 10,610.

While numerous individual traffic studies have been completed, there has been no cumulative traffic effects analysis. However, it is fair to assume that, if all developments move forward, University Parkway, York Street, Rutland Drive, Highway 19N, Wire Road, and Hwy 1 North will all experience heavy increases in traffic.

To accommodate the growth, the City is building a new drinking water plant, but issues with sewage capacity will remain in place until the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant is upgraded.


(*In terms of new housing between Richland Avenue and I-20, these figures do not include growth of another thousand homes or more planned in Trolley Run Station, which is in the Valley Public Service Authority Sewer and Water District and not subject to annexation inside the City of Aiken. This will add another ~2,500 more people to the Aiken area.)

DevelopmentUnitsAcresType
Lokay Lane8010Apartments
Parker at Aiken33630“Luxury” Apartments
Highlands Bluff22644Single Family and Townhomes
University Townhomes16053Townhomes
Rutland Place26946Single Family and Townhomes
Portrait Hills14641Single Family
Rivers Crossing20053Single Family
Bridge Creek705212Single Family
Sundy Street14417Apartments
Fox Ridge Terrace19219Apartments
York Street20240Single Family
Palomino Acres31647Duplexes
May Royal Drive18552Single Family
Woodhaven165240Single Family
Cooper’s Place157112Single Family
Bedford Place725214Single Family
Creighton Meadows28487Single Family
Totals 4,4921,397
Table 1: Developments by number of units, acreage, type housing (click name to view property data and property purchase price paid by developer, if available).

DevelopmentDeveloperLocationJurisdiction
Lokey LaneTaft Mills GroupGregg HwyIn City
Parker at AikenParker-Aiken LLCGregg HwyAnnexation
Highlands BluffHighland Bluff LLCUniversity ParkwayCounty
University TownhomesSouthern United DevelopmentUniversity ParkwayAnnexation
Rutland PlaceVIP RiversideRutland Avenue/Hwy 19In city
Portrait HillsGreat Southern Homes Hwy 19 NorthAnnexation
Rivers CrossingKD Owner 3 LLCHwy 19 NorthCounty
Bridge CreekD&M PartnersHwy 19 NorthCounty
Sundy AvenueUlysses Sundy AvenueIn city
Fox Ridge Trace Tafts Mill Group Rutland AvenueIn City
York Street QOZB2 LLC/MK Land DevelopmentYork Street In city
Palomino Oaks Great Southern Homes York StreetIn city
May Royal DriveMidland Valley LLC/Ivy HomesYork StreetAnnexation
WoodhavenBeazley HomesWire RoadCounty
Cooper’s Place Georgia Southern Wire RoadCounty
Bedford PlaceBeazley Homes Hwy 1N /AirportCounty
Creighton MdwsH & A DevelopmentHwy 1N /AirportCounty
Table 2: Developments by Developer, Location, and Jurisdiction.

Notes on Individual Developments

Area 1: Gregg Highway

Figure 1. Gregg Highway developments. 1. Parker at Aiken apartments. 2. Lokey Lane apartments

Lokey Lane/Gregg Highway

This affordable housing apartment complex was approved by Aiken City Council on April 8, 2024. (see page 140-160 for more details). The target tenants are residents earning less than the area median income. No action has yet been taken. The developer has until June 2025 to close on the property before the concept plan expires.

In June 2024, City Council also voted to award the developer/investor an economic incentive for up to $90,000 to cover half the costs of The permit fees, business license fees, and water and sewer tap fees paid to the city.

The Parker at Aiken

This luxury apartment complex is under construction (Figure 2). City Council approved annexation and a concept plan in January 2023; after the Planning Commission granted a waiver on open space requirements in order to mandate more parking spaces. The area was most recently dominated by Longleaf Pine forest. The developers left undisturbed approximately 3 acres of loblolly pine wetland (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Ongoing construction at Parker at Aiken

Area 2: University Parkway, Hwy 19N, Rutland Drive, York Street, May Royal Road

Figure 4: 1. Highland Bluff ; 2. University Parkway Townhomes; 3. Bridge Creek; 4. River Crossing; 5. Portrait Hills; 6. Rutland Place; 7. Palomino Oaks; 8. May Royal Drive; 9. Guildford; 10. Sundy Street Apartments; 11. York Street 12. Fox Ridge Trace

Highland Bluff remains in the site preparation, utilities installation, and road building stage. Aiken City Council approved water and sewer services in May 2022. The area was formerly forested with a loblolly pine/hardwood mix (below). It is 1.3 miles from the City limits. For more information, see A Stormwater Story.

University Townhomes

Annexation and the concept plan were unanimously approved in May 2022.

Some controversy over its access affected the project. The project is divided into two areas by Lincoln Avenue (Figure 7), which is an unpaved County-owned road. The developers therefore sought two distinct subdivisions with two separate entrances for the gated community—one from University Parkway and one through the Kennedy Kolony subdivision via Tennessee Avenue.

However, long-time area residents objected to this intrusion, and during a community meeting they managed to win a concession—the developer would seek an entrance via Lincoln Avenue, and not Tennessee Avenue. (This option involved lobbying County government to pave the road, and the status of this lobbying effort is unknown. Thus only the northern half of the project is under development.)

The University Parkway side of the project is in the site preparation stages. Because part of the project area is too steep to develop, approximately one-third of the site will remain forested.

For more details, see pages 68-88.

Figure 7. University Townhomes property, within red outline. The area north of Lincoln Avenue is under development. The area north of Lincoln Avenue is temporarily on hold due to access issues after neighborhood objections to the proposed entrance via Tennessee Avenue.

Bridge Creek

This proposed 705-home subdivision on 212 acres was unanimously approved, with minimal discussion, for sewer and water service by Aiken City Council in January 2025. The development still requires approval by the County Planning Commission—no application has been forthcoming to date. The land was clearcut in the early 2010s and never reforested. The property is only 0.6 miles miles from the city limit. For more details, see More Development, More Congestion Enroute for Highway 19 North.

Rivers Crossing

City Council approved water and sewer services in May 2021. The County Planning Commission approved the site plan in 2022. SC DOT and the County required the developer to install turn lanes on Highway 19 in order to access the property.

Surveying of new lots is complete and home construction is nearly half completed (Figure 8). Numerous homes have already sold for $270 to $290 thousand; and are being advertised as starting in the mid $200s K (Figure 9).

The area was originally primarily open field/farmland with a few small patches of timber. There are no rivers or creeks on or nearby the development.

The site is only ~700 feet and three small properties away from city limits; meaning annexation is a probability in the not distant future.

Portrait Hills.

Aiken City Council approved annexation and the concept plan in 2021, and approved an economic incentive in 2022. Surveying of new lots is complete and home construction is well underway. Numerous homes have already sold for $270 to $295 thousand. For more information, see Dust Storm in an Incentive Zone.

Rutland Place.

City Council approved the concept plan in July 2025; which also included an adjacent plan for six acres of commercial development where a Tractor Supply store is envisioned as an anchor retailer. Both the commercial and residential projects remain in the predevelopment and planning stages—no ground has been disturbed to date. The area is approximately 75 percent open field and 25 percent loblolly pine dominated forestland. (Figure 11).

A highly controversial aspect of the project was a waiver request for tighter spacing between buildings; a request to which Aiken Public Safety and the Planning Commission objected. Aiken City Council, with the exception of Mayor Teddy Milner and Councilman Ed Woltz, voted to override the objections of their public safety department and Planning Commission.

Homes are expected to sell in the $225 to $275 thousand range.

See pages 81-160 for more details.

Figure 11. Rutland Place site. Residential area is property outlined in red. Commercial lots are between residential and Rutland. Aiken High School is south of Rutland Dr.

Concord Hill and Maple Green Development at York Street and Rudy Mason Parkway

City Council unanimously approved rezoning to planned residential and a concept plan in April 2025. As with the Rutland Drive development, a waiver on building spacing was sought and approved by Council.

The development consists of two properties, both of which were already cutover, that were combined into one development. The project is in the design stage.

Homes are expected to range from $225 thousand to $275 thousand.

For more details see pages 88-116.

Palamino Oaks

City Council approved the concept plan in 2021. As described in The Realtor Association’s Unreality, Aiken City Council approved a $247,000 economic incentive– to pay for half of work permits and utility connections costs– for Great Southern Homes in 2022.

Site preparation and utilities are completed (Figure 13), but home construction has yet to begin (see below). Prior to 2023 the property was a loblolly pine/hardwood forest, and approximately one-quarter of the forestland has been retained; mostly along the northern boundary.

Sundy Street Apartments

The first rendition of the Sundy Street affordable housing development was approved in March 2023. That developer did not move forward, and a second developer has taken over the project. The city’s Planning Commission unanimously recommended, on May 13, 2025, that City Council approve the current development (see Page 123 for more details).

The site is forested and has a wetland component that appears to be limiting development to about half of the 17-acre property.

Fox Ridge Terrace Apartments.

The city’s Planning Commission unanimously recommended, on May 13, 2025, that City Council approve this affordable housing development.

The site is entirely forested and also has a wetland component; the plan (see Page 99 for details) shows approximately one-quarter of the forestland will remain in place.


May Royal Drive

The first rendition of the May Royal Drive development (yet to have a neighborhood name) was laced with controversy. Concerns regarding quality of life, noise and light pollution, traffic, property values, and the threat of annexation were raised by neighbors residing in the unincorporated county. A flawed traffic study actually considered a left hand turn into a left hand turn to be a traffic mitigation measure.

The pressure from neighbors resulted in some concessions from the developer: a 75 ft buffer between existing homes, no access from Osbon Drive, and a perimeter fence (Figure 16).

However, the developer never closed on its property purchases and the concept plan that was approved by City Council in April 2024 expired.

Another concept plan was brought forth, with Ivy Homes as the builder, and pared down to 52 acres (from 90). This time, despite the same concerns there were no concessions, and City Council approved the plan in March 2025.(Figure 17)

See pages 117-157 for more details.

Figure 16: Final plan for first May Royal proposal approved by City Council in 2024; when the developer agreed to a lower housing density and a 75-foot buffer between new homes and existing neighbors who lot sizes range from one to four acres. That concept plan expired when the developer reportedly could not complete its purchase of the project properties. In the subsequent project design, the same developer only agreed to a 25-foot buffer buffer (the minimum buffer size in the Zoning Ordinance is a mere 10 feet).
Figure 17. Second rendition of the May Royal Drive development. First proposal in 2024 initially included parcels “A” and “B,” and parcel B was removed. The development approved this year also excluded parcel. The developer indicated that Parcel A will become part of the subdivision at some future date.

Area 3: Highway 1N, Wire Road, and Airport

Figure 18: 1. Woodhaven ; 2. Coopers Place; 3. Bedford Place; 4. Creighton Meadows

Woodhaven

The City approved water services, but not sewer, in October 2024. This was a done deal since, in March of 2023, City Council approved a cost-sharing agreement for a water line extension to the property. The City would pay two-thirds of the cost up to $670,000, with the developer (Beazley Homes) paying at least one-third.

According to the City Manager’s supporting memorandum (page 101), the waterline extension was one facet of an overall scheme to extend water service as far as Exit 29 along Interstate 20:

The initial phase of 9,100 linear feet of 12-inch water line extends service to the proposed residential development. The next phase extension of 8,625 linear feet water line provides an extension to existing facilities that the city has on Beaver Dam Road. Additional phases could extend water service to Interstate 20 Exit 29. The availability of water and larger tracts and providing services to this exit could further expand the city’s water district and provide opportunities for further growth to the north of Aiken.”

The site is still in the predevelopment stage.

The development is expected to be more upscale, similar to the adjacent Summer Lakes neighborhood, with lot sizes of 0.98 acres. Unlike Summer Lakes, the only access to Woodhaven will be from Wire Road. The City is not providing sewer services, so the homes will be on septic systems. The property is nearly 2 miles from the city limits, and is unlikely to be annexed in the near future.

Coopers Place

City Council unanimously approved water service on January 27, 2025; the same day it approved utilities service for Bridge Creek and Bedford Place. The Aiken County Planning Commission had already approved the site plan in October 2024; over the objections of numerous area residents.

On March 10, 2025, the Aiken City Council unanimously voted to approve an agreement with Georgia Southern Homes to extend the city’s drinking water system another 3,000 feet north along Wire Road. The deal is for Southern Homes to build the line to their proposed 157-home subdivision; with the City shouldering up to 2/3rds of the cost of the $500,000 project.

Bedford Place

City Council approved water and sewer service for this high density development on January 27, 2025. The first phase of the project site plan was approved, with contingencies such as engineering and traffic study approvals, by the County Planning Commission at its April 2025 meeting.

The property along Hwy 1 North and Beaverdam Road is presently forested with loblolly pine and has been managed as a tree farm for decades. The site is four miles from the City limits. A portion of the property is within the Aiken Airport overlay district.

Creighton Meadows

Aiken City Council approved water and sewer service in August 2024 (see pages 123-137). The only objection to the application for utility service came from Will Williams of the Western South Carolina Economic Development Partnership. In a letter to Council, Williams raised concerns about developing housing adjacent to the Shaw Industries plant on the Frontage Road.

The site, which was also was the preferred location for the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing facility that was rejected by Aiken County Council in April 2024, was clearcut in 2023. A portion of the property is also in the Aiken Airport overlay district. It sites 5.1 miles away from Aiken city limits and is highly unlikely to be annexed under current rules.

The Aiken County Planning Commission approved the site plan in June 2024.

Guildford Townhomes: Rejected for Now.

A public hearing on the application to annex a 24-acre parcel and build 188 townhouse units, called the Guildford, along Wire Road (see Page 68) was held by the city’s Planning Commission on May 13, 2025. After hearing from numerous local citizens, and failing to obtain answers on several issues from the developer’s representative, the Commission recommended denying the application for annexation and concept plan. (See 0:35 to 1:30 mark of meeting video).

At least eight nearby residents, mostly along Wire Road, rose to speak against the subdivision; all of them citing traffic and quality of life concerns as reasons to deny the application. Among the statements were:

  • “It will be a really ugly little crowded neighborhood.” 
  • “I already can’t get my mail“ (which is across the road for many residents) due to fast and heavy traffic
  • “We feel blindsided by this“ and “there are no guardrails against this kind of development.” 
  • This is not compatible with that area of North Aiken, which remains rural and dominated by larger lots. 
  • People already have trouble navigating Wire Road during peak hours. 

For their part, the Planning Commission at times ripped into the application, stating, among other things that: 

  • There were too many unanswered questions remaining (in fact the developer could not answer many questions). 
  • “This is exactly what makes a horrible development…It is Exhibit A of what not to do.” 
  • “The concept plan is not at all compatible and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 

The developer can still take their case to City Council, or they can withdraw their application and regroup—-which would be the practical thing to do given the complete lack of support and substantial opposition to the project. But given the fact that Beazley Homes has purchased the property, it is likely to be developed for housing.

Guildford was the second subdivision in North Aiken to be rejected in the 2020s. In September 2023, the proposed 212-unit Henderson Downs along East Richland Avenue faced unanimously opposition from the Planning Commission after the Aiken Steeplechase Foundation and other neighbors on all sides voiced objections to the subdivision. No further action has been taken to develop the property.

Local Politics and Planning in 2025

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

by Don Moniak
January 10, 2025

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

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


Aiken County’s 2025-2035 Comprehensive Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

*The public information sessions are scheduled as follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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


City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance/Unified Development Ordinance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 12: Municipal party primaries.

August 26: Municipal party primary runoffs, if necessary.

August 21: Closing of entries for nomination by petition.

November 4: Election Day.

A Stormwater Story

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

by Don Moniak
January 11, 2024

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

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

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

From Approval to Road Closures.

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

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

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


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

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

Figure 2: Portion of August 2024 county inspection report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote

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