Category Archives: Aiken County Government

Aiken County Government, Editorials, Freedom of Information, June 2026

Call for Livestreaming, Recording, and Archiving Aiken County Government Meetings

3 Comments

by Vicki Simons
June 1, 2026

Do you ever wish that you knew what was going on at Aiken County Government meetings, but you:

  • can’t attend the meetings in person;
  • feel that it’s a hassle — yea, even an obstruction to open and transparent government — to have to request under FOIA an audio of each meeting individually; and
  • wonder why in the world Aiken County Government isn’t already providing livestreaming, recording, and archiving videos of all public meetings when so many other government entities are already providing this service?

    What follows includes:
  • aspects concerning this topic,
  • what I consider to be the need for this service,
  • parts of my speeches before Aiken County Council; and
  • an urgent call to action for readers to contact their Council members and the Council Chairman, requesting that money be put in the FY 2026-2027 budget, in order to make this service a reality this calendar year.

The Need

Aiken County, South Carolina, (A) is larger than the State of Rhode Island (B) and it takes considerable effort for Aiken County residents from outlying areas to attend meetings in person.

Earlier this year, one speaker commented during the “Informal Meeting of the Whole” (public input period of Aiken County Council meetings) that for every speaker who spoke that night, there were 20 other people who wanted to be there to speak.

In my opinion, livestreaming, recording, and archiving videos of Aiken County’s public meetings will:

1. Enhance government transparency and accountability;

2. Increase public trust in elected officials, county employees, and appointees;

3. Ensure equal access to government proceedings for all citizens, including:

a. those who cannot attend meetings in person,
b. shift workers,
c. parents with school-age children,
d. the elderly,
e. those with disabilities,
f. those who cannot drive at night, and
g. those who live a distance from Aiken;

4. Increase civic engagement and voter awareness;

5. Create a permanent record of government decisions;

6. Prove that county government has nothing to hide;

7. Attract businesses and investors by showcasing government transparency;

8. Demonstrate a commitment to innovation and technological advancement;

9. Reduce the need for personnel to fulfill individual FOIA requests for meeting audios;

10. Allow viewers to see and hear material that is not captured in meeting minutes or reported by the press;

11. Help educate students on government processes;

12. Increase general political awareness in the community;

13, Reinforce the idea that the government works for the people, not behind closed doors; and

14. Many other reasons not listed here.

Many people these days consider it backwards not to livestream public meetings, since resources show that:

  • These South Carolina cities are already doing so:

    o Aiken (C), Charleston (D), Columbia (E), Fort Mill (F), Goose Creek (F), Hardeeville (G), Rock Hill (H), and York(I); and
  • These South Carolina counties were listed as doing so:

    o Abbeville, Georgetown, Williamsburg, and York. (J)

Times When Livestreaming Meetings Would Have Been Helpful

1. During Council’s June 3, 2025, meeting, a Public Hearing took place regarding an AI data center, during which one speaker asked 12 specific questions, none of which Council members addressed, but Council subsequently approved the ordinance authorizing the Fee in Lieu of Tax and Incentive Agreement anyway. (Agenda: G.1., H.1.) (K)

2. During Council’s February 3, 2026, Work Session, a presentation was made via Zoom meeting about impact fees.

In my opinion, this use of technology was a win-win.

It would have been very helpful if the people of Aiken County could have seen the presentation about impact fees, to keep them informed.

Figure 1: February 3, 2026 County Council work session zoom meeting regarding impact fees. This zoom session was not publicly accessible, Photo by Vicki Simons.
Figure 2: Example of slide presented during February 3, 2026 zoom meeting.


3. During Council’s March 17, 2026, meeting, the County Attorney made an excellent presentation on a Resolution in Opposition to H. 5321, A Bill to Establish the “Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority” and to Dissolve the Aiken County Public Service Authority. (Agenda K.1.) (L)

This is the only time when I have personally heard that two government entities — Aiken County Council and the Aiken County Legislative Delegation, both of which represent Aiken County voters — had a major disagreement.

It would have been very helpful if the people — including Aiken County citizens, Aiken County businesses, and the Delegation — could have seen not only the PowerPoint presentation, but also Council’s interaction with the County Attorney about this subject.

4. During Council’s April 14, 2026, meeting, a Public Hearing took place about a proposed ordinance regarding putting a referendum about Sunday alcohol sales and consumption on an upcoming ballot. (Agenda: G.3.) (M)

In my opinion, it would have been helpful if people could have heard the viewpoints presented.

I could provide numerous other examples of when livestreaming Aiken County Council meetings — including Committee meetings — would have been helpful.

Calls to Livestream Aiken County Meetings

1. During the Judicial and Public Safety Committee meeting on January 6, 2026 (N), and during Aiken County Council’s meeting on January 20, 2026 (O), two different people requested that all public meetings be broadcast online.

2. I have publicly requested seven (7) times that Aiken County Council approve funding for livestreaming meetings — on 11/19/2024, 3/18/2025, 5/6/2025, 6/3/2025, 7/15/2025, 2/3/2026, and 4/14/2026 — one of those speeches being made during the Public Hearing on Aiken County’s budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

3. For two years in a row, one County Councilman has requested that money for livestreaming meetings be put in the County’s budget.

How Much Money is Really Required?

On October 29, 2014, the City of Aiken announced, “Live and Archived City Council Meetings Now Available on YouTube.” (P)

At that time, the City of Aiken was paying $1,500 a month for this service. (P)

Multiplying $1,500 per month times 12 months per year, the annual cost would have been (at that time) $18,000.

One Aiken County Councilman proposed modifying the County’s budget to allow for $80,000 per year for video services.

That price seemed high to me, but upon further investigation, I learned that that price quote had been received from a county department.

I requested publicly that that quote be examined in detail because livestreaming public meetings to YouTube or other video platforms cost a fraction of the cost cited.

I have not received an answer to my request.

Aiken County Voters Must Speak Up

Even though a line near the top of every Aiken County Council meeting agenda reads, “Council Administrator Form of Government…”, the Aiken County Organizational Chart (Q) clearly shows that Aiken County Voters are over numerous government entities, including Aiken County Council.

Furthermore, we know that The Declaration of Independence (R) says that,

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” meaning that Aiken County Government derives its just powers from the people of Aiken County.

Going beyond just livestreaming Council meetings, I have publicly requested that Aiken County Government’s budget include paying for livestreaming, recording, and archiving videos of all public meetings, including, but not limited to, meetings of:

  • the Planning Commission;
  • the Board of Appeals;
  • the Voter Registration and Elections Board;
  • all Aiken County Council committees; and
  • Aiken County Council’s work sessions, regular meetings, and special meetings.

In my opinion, there is no valid reason why Aiken County Council should delay approving funding for livestreaming, recording, and archiving services similar to those used by the City of Aiken.

Yet, the request for this service can’t come from just a couple of concerned Aiken County citizens. There must be a massive outpouring of requests from across Aiken County.

Urgent Call to Action

The Aiken County Administrator presented a proposed FY 2027 County Budget to Aiken County Council during their meeting on May 5, 2026. (S)

Since Aiken County Council has been holding budget work sessions for the 2026-2027 Fiscal Year, now is the time when the Aiken County Voters’ voices need to be heard.

This urgent call to action is for Aiken County Voters to:

  • contact (T) their Council members and the Council Chairman by no later than June 12, 2026; and
  • request that, in their FY 2026-2027 budget, money be allocated to pay for livestreaming, recording, and archiving videos of all public meetings, with implementation this calendar year.

    The budget must be passed by the end of June, so time is of the essence.

    (Editor’s note: The Aiken County Council Public Hearing on the 2026-2027 County budget will be held Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at 1930 University Parkway (County Administration Building, 3rd Floor) at 7 pm. This is the Second Reading and vote on the matter. The Third Reading will likely be June 16th).

References:

A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiken_County,_South_Carolina

B. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island

C. https://www.cityofaikensc.gov/event/city-council-meeting/

D. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxDws_o-1voXBNOAZ17gZxw

E. https://columbiasc.gov/city-of-columbia-launches-new-online-meeting-management-system/

F. https://www.masc.sc/uptown/10-2022/online-engagement-brings-local-government-residents

G. https://hardeevillesc.gov/2355/Live-Broadcast

H. https://www.cityofrockhill.com/departments/office-of-strategy-management/communications-marketing/live-stream

I. https://www.yorkcountygov.com/531/Meeting-Videos

J. https://www.sccounties.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resources/virtual_meetings.pdf

K. https://files.teamup.com/3997068/attachment/01JWRPQ96QYKG3BNYQDV51ZVGQ/Council%20AGENDA%206.3.25.pdf?hash=0c42b0f8a5dc72bf851a6c018adbeccc4e1293237cb32e64cc85ab305f681069

L. https://sc-aikencounty.civicplus.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03172026-100

M. https://sc-aikencounty.civicplus.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04142026-114

N. https://files.teamup.com/3997068/attachment/01KE7DZ1R5J1JFCAHSRS0E9E55/JPS%20Agenda%201.6.2026.pdf?hash=b70ed747304bcd15f319229f2f73d577528b8f4be490956587a64f23de088b35

O. https://sc-aikencounty.civicplus.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_01202026-42

P. https://www.cityofaikensc.gov/live-archived-city-council-meetings-now-available-youtube/

Q.  https://www.aikencountysc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/522/County-Organizational-Chart-PDF-

R. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

S. https://sc-aikencounty.civicplus.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05052026-137

T. https://www.aikencountysc.gov/529/Council-Members

Aiken County Government, Wastewater

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

2 Comments

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

by Don Moniak
March 23. 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

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

Figure 3.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Solution: Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

During the chicken plant debate, Mobley actually said this;

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

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

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

Aiken County Government, Freedom of Information, July 2025

Details Matter Regarding Protecting Freedom of Speech

1 Comment

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.

Aiken County Government, Development Issues, taxation

Project Wisteria’s One New Job 

6 Comments


by Don Moniak
December 18, 2024


Tuesday night’s Aiken County Council meeting featured an unusual vote of 5-4, the only such vote for all of 2024. 

At issue was the Second Reading of the proposed Fee in Lieu of Taxes* agreement and an associated Industrial/Business Park designation for Project Wisteria (pages 42-91). 

Project Wisteria is a planned $23 million small data storage center to be constructed by an unidentified company and appears to be located on 14 acres along Atomic Road outside of North Augusta City limits (Figure 1). The property is currently owned by DCB (DC Blox) North Augusta, LLC; which purchased it for  $1,588,400 from Riverplace Holding Partnership in November 2024. The area is zoned Urban Development, but does have residential areas within that district.

The data center will involve a single job worth $150,000 per year. 

Figure 1: Proposed location of Project Wisteria data center.


Council members Kelly Mobley, Mike Kellems, Danny Feagan, and Ron Felder voted against the Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) agreement. Mobley and Felder openly questioned the need for a tax incentive for a project that will only create a single new job. Mobley also noted that since the facility will be located on “prime real estate,” the company has already purchased the land, and it is not in an existing county industrial park, there is little reason the County should further incentivize the project.

Council Chairman Gary Bunker and Council members PK Hightower, Phil Napier, Andrew Siders, and Sandy Haskell voted for the agreement and the Industrial/Business Park designation. Siders pointed out the “ancillary jobs” associated with servicing the facility added more value than the focus on a single job.

No other Council member put forth an argument in favor of granting the project tax incentive. 

Will Williams of the Western South Carolina Economic Partnership explained that the FILOT payments would be greater for the first five years, but did not explain the structure after that point nor the differences in revenues through the up to 40-year period of the negotiated FILOT agreement (2).

A public hearing followed by the Third Reading of the Project Wisteria FILOT Ordinance is tentatively scheduled for either Council’s January 7, 2025 or January 21, 2025 public meeting. 

Still No Live Stream Broadcast of Meetings

The spirited discussion revolving around Project Wisteria was only observed by meeting attendees because Aiken County Council does not livestream meetings for its citizens to observe County government in action. 

According to a recent report in The Nerve, Aiken County is one of 20 counties, out of 46, that does not livestream County Council meetings. 

Councilman Mobley, who was attending his last meeting as a Council member, has openly advocated for live streaming of meetings for the past year. During the Administrative Committee meeting he again expressed the need for Council to film the meetings, stating that: 

“People are asking to broadcast meetings and see what is going on. People want it, we can afford it, and people will trust us more if we do it.” 

During the public comment portion of the meeting, I asked the audience of approximately 40 county citizens whether they supported live streaming of meetings. An overwhelming majority raised their hand in support.

Footnote

*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.” 

The FILOT rate for Project Sabal is listed as four percent. 

In between his terms on County Council and his election as County Council Chairman, Gary Bunker was a popular columnist for the Aiken Standard. in his columns he routinely described Fee in Lieu of Taxes as an industrial tax incentives. In 2013 he wrote that South Carolina’s tax structure: 

“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) See Page 18 of the County’s $6 million grant application for the proposed, and defeated, House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant project for an example of a FILOT payment structure.

Aiken County Government, Development Issues, Freedom of Information, House of Raeford Chicken Plant, November 2024

The Chicken Plant Grants 

5 Comments


According to information obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the South Carolina Department of Agriculture (SCDA), Aiken County was awarded a $6 million grant by SCDA for the purpose of helping to develop the proposed House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant. Had it been finalized, the grant would have supplemented a probable $10 million grant from the federal government to House of Raeford. The existence of the Aiken County grant and the details of the federal grant proposal were never disclosed. Had the project proceeded, the proposed House of Raeford plant near Exit 22 would have received $16 million in direct public subsidies in addition to discounted tax, water, and sewer rates.

by Don Moniak
November 16, 2024

Two weeks after Aiken County Council opted not to move forward on a tax incentive package for the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, aka Project Sunny, the Aiken Standard published an editorial by South Carolina Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weathers that criticized the Council and took a swipe at Aiken County in general for allowing Project Sunny to fail.

Weathers asserted that “the Aiken community will “miss out on the pride that comes from supporting local farmers,” while further stating that Council Council “let their constituents down in failing to gather all the facts;” and that “I’ve heard a lot of misinformation about this project, and I’m disappointed that council never provided an opportunity for the public to learn the facts and weigh the pros and cons.” 

What Commissioner Weathers neglected to mention is that the Agriculture Department, the House of Raeford, County Council, the City of Aiken, and the Western Carolina Economic Development Partnership kept the public totally in the dark by failing to provide any information on Project Sunny until opposition to the effort emerged and rapidly grew.

Instead, Project Sunny’s “sponsor” was kept secret until it could no longer be hidden. Only then did House of Raeford and its allies in state government mount what turned out to be a belated, and ultimately futile public relations campaign to try to salvage the project—a campaign that began with a “flowery” presentation to Aiken City Council held during a closed-door Executive Session that should have been on the regular meeting agenda and held in full public view.

In retrospect, Weathers’ frustration at Council’s reticence to disclose any of the facts concerning the project, though not his unnecessary barbs, seems a bit rational because prior to any opposition Project Sunny was a sure bet; and a traditionally opaque approval process was the best means towards winning that bet.

This is evidenced by two grant proposals totaling $16 million that were either barely discussed or not discussed at all during the debate. 

First, there was a $10 million grant proposal by House of Raeford in November 2023, assisted by the Agriculture Department, to the federal subsidy program known as the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program (MPPEP). The existence of a possible $10 million grant was referenced in a WJBF story and an Aiken Standard report, but no details were ever offered.

Second, on February 14, 2024, Aiken County submitted an application for a $6 million state grant to the South Carolina Department of Agriculture’s Growing Agribusiness Fund—which was funded by a $40 million legislative allocation in 2023. The County’s grant proposal, which was never publicly disclosed, included House of Raeford financial data—assets, revenues, profits, and costs—that was absent from the federal grant application.  

The application shows that, contrary to Commissioner Weathers’ assertions, Aiken County government was very well informed about the project details, including water and sewer demands of at least 33.8 million gallons per month—amounts quite similar to the estimates first implied in January 2024 when the City of Aiken sought a generic rate discount for water and sewer use for major users of its utilities.

Aiken County’s grant proposal also displayed knowledge that House of Raeford’s Aiken plant would not only replace its increasingly controversial West Columbia plant, but it would also double the capacity of chickens processed– up to 57 million per year at a rate of up to 1.3 million per week. The doubling of capacity was also known to be dependent upon the creation of 260 new chicken houses to raise broiler chickens, with upwards of 80 new or expanded growers needed to operate the new facilities—a fact that was greatly and inexplicably underreported during the March-April debate period.

Just twelve days after submitting its proposal, Aiken County was awarded the grant by the “Agriculture Agribusiness Infrastructure Incentives Distribution Initiative Panel” during the panel’s Feburary 26, 2024 meeting.

The two grant proposals and the award to Aiken County suggest that the House of Raeford plant was a done deal prior to two unexpected events: a sewer capacity shortfall and a strong public opposition movement—especially from nearby residents.

County Council Vice-Chair Andrew Siders, who, along with County Chair Gary Bunker, were directly lobbied by Governor Henry McMaster (Figure 1) in early April of 2024, would later tell the Aiken Standard that the opposition was “overwhelming,” a sentiment echoed by County Councilman Phil Napier; who represents the district where the plant was proposed to be located.

Figure 1. Emails between state government officials, House of Raeford executive Jantzen Bradley, and lobbyist Tony Denny.
The calls occurred two weeks before the Second Reading of a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) Ordinance that would have provided tax rate discounts that can be viewed on Page 17 of the County’s Grant Proposal. The details of the FILOT agreement were never made public during the two months it was in Council’s legislative process. The FILOT agreement failed, at least for one year, after Council opted to not move the Ordinance forward during the Second Reading, which can be heard from a link in The Chicken Plant Tapes. (Email obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.)


The Chicken Plant Location

The two grant applications collectively revealed the location in the northern portion of Aiken County, near I-20’s Exit 22, was based primarily on two factors.

First, it is within 60 miles of most of the company’s existing 80 chicken broiler house growers that supply its current needs.

Second, Aiken County was described in the MEPPA grant application as being “in a rural western/central region of South Carolina, away from major metropolitan areas. This region is represented by rural, underserved, and disenfranchised populations,” (emphasis added) “nearly 13 percent of housing units are vacant,” and the cost of living in Aiken County is lower than that of Lexington County.

The company first settled on a location within Verenes Business Park, which is already zoned for industrial use. As of November 2023, the company had submitted a Letter of Intent (LOI) to purchase the former Avara Pharmaceuticals properties and building on Windham Boulevard.

The site is just south of an undeveloped 146-acre tract owned by the City of Aiken that would have provided a visual screening from the Interstate. However, it is also only a third of a mile upwind from the closest homes in the Taylor Ridge neighborhood, which is composed of quarter to half-million dollar homes on 2-5 acre lots.

The Avara properties total 24.1 acres and the main building is approximately 170,000 square feet, which corresponds to the estimated 165,000+ square foot facility size identified in the County’s grant application, as well as in subsequent reports. The offering price was $12 million, and closing was anticipated for April 2024. 

According to an email from Will Williams of the Western Carolina Economic Development Partnership to a local resident, House of Raeford passed on the Avara property after “they determined they could ‘settle’ but not be able to get exactly what they wanted.” Another issue raised in the Williams email was that “I didn’t want odor nor feathers on Windham Blvd”—legitimate issues raised by chicken slaughterhouse opponents.

By the time the County’s grant application was submitted to SC Department of Agriculture, the location had changed to an 87-acre parcel along East Frontage Road next to the existing Shaw plant. This site is generally upwind from more than 100 homes along Old Camp Long Road—the closest being only 1,000 feet— and at least thirty properties in a newly developed area known as Big Branch Farms, where lot sizes range from 5-25 acres. It was to be three miles generally downwind, but close enough to be of concern, to the Summer Lakes neighborhood and the older Millbrook neighborhood.

Clearly, House of Raeford’s due diligence that led to a conclusion that the “region was rural, underserved, and disenfranchised” was undermined by the fact that the area is increasingly dotted with suburban and exurban developments of Aiken, as well as Augusta and Lexington, within an older mix of farms and mixed-income neighborhoods. In fact, instead of a chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, a suburban-style subdivision is now planned for the East Frontage Road site.

In its search for a more suitable rural setting than West Columbia, House of Raeford instead chose an area undergoing steady residential growth. Instead of looking at its own demographics research deficiencies, the company and its allies in state government blamed the failure of the project on public “misinformation.”

Avara Plant site, with one-mile downwind radius indicated
East Frontage Road site, with one-mile downwind radius indicated

(Feature photo: Concept design of the exterior of the chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant contained in the County’s grant application).