Category Archives: Aiken County Government

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).

Aiken County, Aiken County Government, October 2024, Planning

The Resiliency Element

2 Comments

The Aiken County Comprehensive Plan, disasters, and near-disasters.

by Don Moniak
October 18, 2024

This year, Aiken County is required by law to develop a Comprehensive Plan that serves as a guiding document for development and redevelopment.

Such plans are mandated by Section 6-29-510 of the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994, which states that local Planning Commissions are “to maintain the process that will result in the systematic preparation and continual re-evaluation and updating of those elements considered critical, necessary, and desirable to guide the development and redevelopment of its area of jurisdiction.”

Prior to 2020, plans had to be written to address, at a minimum, nine key variables, aka “elements.” (1) Those were, and remain, population, economic development, natural and cultural resources, community facilities, housing, land use, transportation, and priority investments.

In 2020, the tenth element of resiliency was added, which in this case is perhaps best defined by FEMA as “the ability to prepare for threats and hazards, adapt to changing conditions, and withstand and recover rapidly from adverse conditions and disruptions;” an understated way of describing both widespread and localized disasters and near-disasters.

This definition is perhaps the most pertinent because, under state law, the resiliency element requires that planners consider the impacts of natural phenomena that can create “natural hazards.” Specifically, the law states, in part, that:

“A resiliency element considers the impacts of flooding, high water, and natural hazards on individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, economic development, public infrastructure and facilities, and public health, safety and welfare. This element includes an inventory of existing resiliency conditions, promotes resilient planning, design and development, and is coordinated with adjacent and relevant jurisdictions and agencies..”

The Aiken County Plan and Resiliency

The operative word for comprehensive plans is “guide.” The plans are not legally binding, but intended to provide guidance for future decision-making, i.e., the approval or disapproval of a developer’s plans.

Once a draft plan is completed, public hearings must be held prior to the plan’s approval by County Council. According to the 2014-2024 Aiken County Comprehensive Plan, the Aiken County Planning Commission (ACPC) held a public hearing on December 18, 2014, and that was followed by a 12-month public comment period and public input sessions.

The County’s process for its 2025-2035 plan is moving at a similar pace, with a schedule for completion and approval in mid to late 2025.

According to the minutes from the ACPC’s May 2024 public meeting, the status of the plan was discussed during the “New Business” portion of the agenda (2). Four months later, the early timeframe (Figure 1) presented at the May meeting evening had still not been realized—the ACPC had yet to hold a public meeting to discuss the issue.

As the process moves along, the opportunity to delve into the issue of resiliency planning and response to natural and man-made disasters has been presented at a time when the lessons learned from emergency preparations for, and post-disaster response to Hurricane Helene will be fresh in the minds of Aiken County residents. The next year is an opportune time to discuss the issues posed by natural and man-made hazards—which currently are only addressed in the County’s thorough, though obscure, Emergency Operations Plan.

Figure 1. Early timeline for preparing Aiken County’s Comprehensive Plan for the next 10 years. A Freedom of Information Act request has been filed to determine who the consultant is, when that consultancy contract was procured, and what interviews, if any, have been conducted.


The Resiliency Element

Aiken County is susceptible to numerous natural hazards, including tornadoes, tropical storms/hurricanes, ice storms, major rainfall events that can trigger flooding and dam failures, severe drought, and wildfires—all hazards that can be chronically exacerbated by human development. The County is also vulnerable to man-made disasters such as a radiological dispersal accident at the Savannah River Site or its neighbor, the Plant Vogtle nuclear power plant

In the past ten years, the County has experienced two major, widespread weather events—-the Ice Storm of 2014 and 2024’s Hurricane Helene. Both incidents resulted in catastrophic damage to the electrical grid, with critical facilities and more than a hundred thousand residents losing electrical power. The amount of debris generated by the storms overwhelmed local and state-wide capabilities.

These consequences led to the federal designation of a regional disaster area that included Aiken County; thus enabling the County to receive FEMA funds to alleviate the cost of its responses, most notably debris removal. However, FEMA does not come to the rescue for lesser, more localized events whose severity levels do not reach the threshold beyond which the County and State of South Carolina can adequately respond; and even FEMA funding requires some accompanying cost sharing that provides a financial incentive to mitigate disaster response needs.

The County can also experience man-made hazards that can result in disasters and near-disasters. Most notable is the Graniteville train wreck of 2005 that produced a plume of chlorine gas; which triggered an evacuation of more than 5,000 people, killed nine, and caused long-term health impacts for hundreds of residents. This accident is still a top-of-the-mind event, as the Aiken County Emergency Management Plan identifies a railroad accident as “likely” to be “catastrophic;” and thus it is assigned the highest disaster rating of 9 in the disaster rating summary (Figure 2).

While these events may remain prominent because of their scale and breadth of the events, other disastrous and disrupting events have occurred. These include the 2009 tornado that tore across 35 miles of terrain from Columbia County to New Ellenton, tornadoes in the Windsor and Monetta areas in 2022, record-breaking rainfall and associated dam failures in Eastern Aiken County—and across the state—during the 2015 Hurricane Joaquin-related, thousand-year rainfall event referred to as the “fire hose” phenomenon, and the Gateway Fire in May 2019 that caused a complete shutdown of Interstate 20 and the evacuation of dozens of residents.

Figure 2. Aiken County Disaster Rating Summary. From the Aiken County Emergency Operations Plan. The plan states that Aiken County Emergency Management will “prepare for all possible events, but place the greatest emphasis on the most dangerous events that are also most likely to occur.” Severe drought that can result in water shortages is one category that is overlooked. (Click to enlarge)


Comprehensive Planning in Other Jurisdictions

In 2022, the North Augusta City Council approved its 2021-2031 Comprehensive Plan, but failed to include the resiliency element—even though much of the City’s growth has occurred in the Savannah River flood plain, and tornadoes and other extreme weather, most recently Hurricane Helene, have struck the town.

In 2023, the City of Aiken did make an effort to address the newly identified resiliency element in its amended, five-year update to its Comprehensive Plan. In the final document, city planners devoted two pages (217-218) to resiliency. The chapter began by stating that little guidance is currently available from the State of South Carolina to address these issues.

Compare these first two local efforts to Lexington County’s 2022-2032 Comprehensive Plan. In it, twelve pages of detailed information were devoted to the resiliency element chapter (3), and thirteen concrete measures to be taken were later identified in the implementation chapter.

While the emphasis was on mitigating flood risks and responding to flood events that have plagued, and continue to threaten, the County, the plan also identified ice storms, hurricanes, and man-made hazards such as the risk of a radiation dispersal accident at nearby Summer Nuclear Power Plant—although no mitigating measures were identified yet for the latter.

The Lexington County plan also includes a much fuller identification of the various agencies and jurisdictions, and identifies the means to achieve greater resiliency, such as treating “ lowlands as natural assets,” and “preserving natural areas.”

Florence County, which is also comparable in size to Aiken County, also addressed resiliency in its plan. The County provided a detailed snapshot of the extreme natural events experienced in the past 50-60 years—a table (Figure 3) that provides an insight into the breadth and frequency of natural hazards.

Figure 3: Natural hazards experienced in Florence County over the past half-century. (Click to enlarge)


Aiken County has the opportunity to delve into the resiliency element in a similarly broad and deep manner as other counties, and in a way that could greatly heighten citizen awareness of how risks can be mitigated and how responses can be better streamlined. The planning process will likely follow an internal review of how the County’s Emergency Management response corresponded to its operations plan during the recent Hurricane Helene (Figure 4) disaster, and the ongoing response to that event—including such prominent issues such as information availability and dissemination, the provision of emergency shelters, and the timeliness of debris removal from our roadsides.

Figure 4. Hurricane Helene storm path, 6 a.m., February 27th. According to the Aiken County Emergency Operations Plan, a hurricane is considered “possible” in Aiken County and has a disaster rating of 4–the same as an earthquake and less than a flood. Prior to Hurricane Helene, Aiken County residents were more accustomed to hosting evacuees from the Coast, not experiencing hurricane force winds first-hand.



Footnotes

(1) The law states the following:

“A local comprehensive plan must include, but not be limited to, the following planning elements:

A population element “which considers historic trends and projections, household numbers and sizes, educational levels, and income characteristics.”

An economic development element “which considers labor force and labor force characteristics, employment by place of work and residence, and analysis of the economic base.”

A natural resources element “which considers coastal resources, slope characteristics, prime agricultural and forest land, plant and animal habitats, parks and recreation areas, scenic views and sites, wetlands, and soil types. Where a separate board exists pursuant to this chapter, this element is the responsibility of the existing board.”

A cultural resources element “which considers historic buildings and structures, commercial districts, residential districts, unique, natural, or scenic resources, archaeological, and other cultural resources. Where a separate board exists pursuant to this chapter, this element is the responsibility of the existing board.”

A community facilities element “which considers water supply, treatment, and distribution; sewage system and wastewater treatment; solid waste collection and disposal, fire protection, emergency medical services, and general government facilities; education facilities; and libraries and other cultural facilities.”

A housing element “which considers location, types, age, and condition of housing, owner and renter occupancy, and affordability of housing. This element includes an analysis to ascertain nonessential housing regulatory requirements, as defined in this chapter, that add to the cost of developing affordable housing but are not necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare and an analysis of market-based incentives that may be made available to encourage the development of affordable housing, which incentives may include density bonuses, design flexibility, and streamlined permitting processes. The planning commission must solicit input for this analysis from homebuilders, developers, contractors, and housing finance experts when developing this element.”

A land use element which “considers existing and future land use by categories, including residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, forestry, mining, public and quasi-public, recreation, parks, open space, and vacant or undeveloped.”

A transportation element that “considers transportation facilities, including major road improvements, new road construction, transit projects, pedestrian and bicycle projects, and other elements of a transportation network. This element must be developed in coordination with the land use element, to ensure transportation efficiency for existing and planned development.”

A priority investment element that “analyzes the likely federal, state, and local funds available for public infrastructure and facilities during the next ten years, and recommends the projects for expenditure of those funds during the next ten years for needed public infrastructure and facilities such as water, sewer, roads, and schools.”

The resiliency element that “considers the impacts of flooding, high water, and natural hazards on individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, economic development, public infrastructure and facilities, and public health, safety and welfare. This element includes an inventory of existing resiliency conditions, promotes resilient planning, design and development, and is coordinated with adjacent and relevant jurisdictions and agencies. “

(2) The May 21, 2024 agenda did not identify the Comprehensive Plan as being a New Business agenda item. There was no public notice that the plan was even to be discussed. This was arguably a violation, at least in the spirit if not the letter, of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. SC FOIA mandates that agendas be published within 24 hours of a meeting and that any changes in the agenda be made at the beginning of the meeting and documented. The plan was not on the agenda, it was added to the agenda with no notice and no Motion to do so.

(3). Lexington County also added a public safety element and an implementation plan, and divided natural and cultural resources into separate chapters to create a thirteen-chapter plan—three more issue categories than required by the law.

Additional Resources

GovPilot.com: How Local Governments Build Resilient Communities.

The Beaufort County Comprehensive Plan considers “resiliency in the face of a changing coastline,” one of the only plans that even alludes to the impacts of climate change, which drove the inclusion of the “resiliency element” into comprehensive planning—without mentioning the term “climate change.”

The FEMA National Resilience Guideline.

Feature Photo: A unique specimen of Longleaf Pine. The ~75-year-old tree appears to have been damaged in the ice storm that occurred in March, 2004. After the top was broken, it developed multiple tops but no cohesive structure. The tree was resilient to a harsh event, but still did not fully recover.

As a species, Longleaf Pine is generally much more resilient than the more prevalent Loblolly Pine; being better adapted to higher fire intensity, hail, high winds, and other phenomena.

The photo was chosen because the issue of forest cover and species composition in forestlands and urban forests could be at the forefront of near-term discussions relating to resiliency; which is an issue to also be addressed in future stories.

The Aiken Chronicles welcomes all letters and columns devoted to the Aiken County Comprehensive Plan and any other issues of concern.