At its Tuesday, May 7, 2024, public meeting, Aiken County Council will vote on a resolution to move forward with a County voter referendum, to be placed on the November 2024 General Election ballot, for a one-percent Capital Project Sales Tax (CPST). Title 4, Chapter 10 of South Carolina law (Title allows for the imposition of one-percent local option sales taxes (LOST); of which the CPST (Article 3) and the more cumbersome “Education Capital Improvements Sales and Use Tax Act” (Article 4) are two provisions of LOST being applied in this year’s referendums.
The CPST referendum, if passed, will provide tax revenues of up to $264,066,386 for specific capital investments projects and general capital project area; i.e. water, sewer, traffic control, and stormwater management.
As reported in More Than Pennies: The Confluence of One-Percent Sales Tax Referendums, this will be is the fifth one-percent Capital Project Sales Tax voter referendum since 2000 (thus the acronym CPST-V), the second referendum during a Presidential Election year, and the first time county voters will have both a CPST referendum and an Aiken County School District’s capital projects one-percent sales tax referendum on the same ballot.
Council’s resolution (Figure 1) includes appointment of a six-person Sales Tax Commission that “must be established to review the suggested list of projects to check for appropriateness under State law and reasonableness of need to the County.”
The members of the Commission are listed as
“Mr. Andrew Marine, Mr. Brett Brannon and Mr. Shane Bagby (Aiken County representatives), Ms. Nora Sanders (Small Towns representative-collectively), Mr. Reggie Ebner (City of Aiken representative) and Mr. Austin Taylor (City of North Augusta representative).”
The resolution begins:
“Aiken County and its municipalities have identified several critical capital project needs.”
In this case, “several” is equal to 166 line items ranging from projects as specific as individual new facilities to project areas as vague as “stormwater improvements.” Funding requests by jurisdiction range from $0.2 million to $127 million (Table 1). (The complete list can be found on pages 88-97 of Council’s Agenda documents and in footnote 3)
The costs per line item range from $500 for a park sign in Windsor to $14 million dollars each for City of Aiken Water system and Sewer system improvements. (1)
$14.7 million of the Aiken County funding requests are for the paving of 27 unpaved County roads ($10.7 million) and resurfacing of 50 paved County Roads ($4.7 million). (2)
Table 1: Breakdown of requested CPST funding requests by jurisdiction. Complete lists are in Footnote 3.
Figure 1: County Council CPST Resolution for May 7, 2024
Footnotes
(1) Adding the requested $8 million for replacing the existing well and septic system in the City’s Beverly D. Clyburn Generations Park brings the City’s projected utilities department funding requests to $36 million—just over 13 percent of the total CPST referendum package.
A request for an additional $5 million for Generations Park is designated for is also scheduled to receive another $5 million for “Tennis, pickleball, and volleyball courts and other features based on an updated Master Plan and community needs.”
(2) The County Road paving program identifies 27 roads on an A-List and 25 roads on a B-List that will be used in the case that any A-list road project cannot be completed.
Resurfacing includes 11 county roads outside of subdivisions, including Old Tory Trail, Powerhouse Road, Brier Patch Lane, and Anderson Pond Road; and 39 roads within four of Aiken County’s neighborhoods near the City of Aiken—Braeloch, Gem Lakes, Quail Hollow, and Foxchase—and one near North Augusta—Lakes and Streams.
ScreenshotScreenshotResurfacing projects include six additional Lakes and Streams subdivisions.
(3) Lists of projects and project areas funding requests by jurisdiction. (click to enlarge)
Aiken County Government. To be approved at Council’s May 7th meeting.
Audio recordings of Aiken County Council’s April 16th meetings regarding the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, the County’s wastewater/sewer plant capacity issue, and other County business.
by Don Moniak April 30, 2024
On Tuesday, April 16, 2024, before a standing room only audience, Aiken County Council opted to not proceed on a tax incentive Ordinance, known as a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT), for the proposed House of Raeford (HOR) chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant. As a result of the non-decision, Chairman Gary Bunker declared the FILOT Ordinance “as dead as Marley’s ghost.”
As reported in Sewage Capacity Makes the News, the pivotal issue for the failure of the Ordinance was, and remains, wastewater management; as the HOR chicken plant could demand upwards of 1.7 million gallons of wastewater capacity per day (MGD) from a system that is only permitted to process 20 MGD, and which has less than 0.5 MGD of “unsold capacity.”
Despite the vast territory that is Aiken County, the County Council is still only considering live streaming of its meetings. Officials also refuse to even post audio tapes of Council meetings on the County website.
Although County Code (Figure 1) mandates that archives of audio recordings of Council meetings be kept for five years, and verbatim transcripts must be requested by a Council member (which rarely happens and did not on this occasion); the County requires that individual citizens must request copies of any audiotapes through a hybrid Freedom of Information Act request process. Costs of tapes can range as high as $3.86.
Because of the importance of the April 16th meeting, the audio recordings of Council’s Work Session and the Regular Meeting are being made available by the Aiken Chronicles. Following are timelines and summaries of both, with various speakers identified.
The Work Session audio contains a nearly ten minute discussion regarding the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant, of which six minutes pertain to the critical issue of wastewater processing capacity. The critical information conveyed during the Work Session was not relayed to the hundreds of people who attended the Regular Meeting.
The discussion began at the 4:03 minute mark and occurred within the confines of the Work Session Agenda Item titled: “ Finance & ARPA Update Reports- February 2024.” The information that was discussed can be found in the Work Session Finance/Audit Reports.
8:45: A short discussion on the FILOT revenue information ensued after Councilman Mike Kellems asked if there is a report that could make accounting of FILOT revenues more clear. Council was told these figures will not show up until June.
10:20: The ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act of 2021) discussion began.
13:15 to 18:13. Councilman Kelly Mobley questioned County Administrator Brian Sanders about a Professional Engineering Report and a separate Wastewater Capacity Study.
18:13 to 19:10 . Council Chairman Gary Bunker took over the questioning and better defined the terms of the capacity issue—that there is only 300,000 to 500,000 gallons per day of “unsold capacity;” meaning that all nearly all sewer processing capacity is currently sold to various Sewer and Water Districts.
21:31. Council voted to enter Executive Session, without specifying which projects will be discussed during the closed-door meeting.
The Public Hearing portion of the Regular meeting began at the 8:00 minute mark of the audio recording.
00:15:00: Questions were posed about a confusing Ordinance that authorizes Rezoning of a property from Residential Conservation (RC) to Residential Multi-Family (RD). The change was requested because RC requires lot size of 0.98 acres, and the proposed Beazley Homes subdivision involves lot sizes of 0.95 acres.
00:17:40; Questions were posed about another Ordinance that authorizes Rezoning of a property from a combination of RD and RUD (Rural Development) to only RUD. A comment was made that County Council should seek public involvement before drafting the new County Comprehensive Plan. This comment drew applause.
(Both of these Readings exposed hundreds of people to the County Zoning Ordinance and planning process.)
00:21:50. Old Business Number One, The Second Reading of the House of Raeford FILOT Ordinance was introduced. (A video with low-quality audio of the Second Reading can also be viewed here).
00:22:31: A Motion to Table was made by Councilman Mike Kellems and Seconded by Councilman Kelly Mobley, that would have deferred the Reading to a later meeting. Because a Motion to Table is undebatable, there was no discussion as to why it was made.
00;23:40: A vote on the Motion to Table was held. The Motion failed by a vote of 7-2, with Councilmen Mobley and Kellems casting the affirmative votes. The vote drew applause.
00:24:00: Chairman Bunker asked: “Is there a motion on this matter.”
00:24:15; After the lack of a Motion to proceed, Chairman Bunker announced that, “The Second Reading of this Ordinance fails due to the lack of a motion.”
00:24:23: An audience member asked: “Could you tell us what this means?”
00: 24:25 Chairman Bunker responded: “This means that this is as dead as Marley’s Ghost.”
00:24:28. There were twenty seconds of applause.
00:24:50 Councilman Phil Napier asked for all of his District 6 constituents to raise their hands.
00:25:15 Councilman Mobley stated: “ 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…”
00:26:25: County Attorney Brad Farrar explained what the issue voted upon involved.
00:27:00: Councilwoman P.K. Hightower stated that if the County cannot support HOR from a sewer standpoint then they can build but not operate; followed by five seconds of applause.
00:27:45: Chairman Bunker announces a five-minute Recess and states that “My guess is that 90 percent of the room were in here for this.”
00:35:00. The meeting resumed, with a full room of County residents remaining.
00:41:25 The “Informal Meeting of the Whole,” began; the portion where pubic comment is taken. Chairman Bunker stated that speakers should address “any topic not previously discussed this evening.” Nine County residents then spoke at the podium before Council, and one spoke from the audience.
00:42:25 to 46:30. Vicki Simons spoke about Council’s December 2020 decision to extend the City of Aiken’s Sewer and Water District boundaries north of Interstate 20. Chairman Bunker interrupted two minutes into her speech after she mentioned the HOR plant.
00:46:40 to 00:48:05 : Nilda Burke talked about rezoning needs across the County and advocated for a better comprehensive plan. (The County’s new Ten-Year Comprehensive Plan will be developed this year).
00:48:20: Carson Sublett offered the suggestion of employing the knowledge and expertise of County residents before pursuing major projects. After he began to discuss HOR’s record, Chairman Bunker again interjected with a warning to “not rehash” agenda issues.
00:50:40 Debbie Lybrand, who played a key organizational role in bringing people to the meeting, thanked Council for its actions.
00:52:00. Chris Miller addressed a separate issue, one of code enforcement compliance. This discussion lasted for nearly twenty minutes. At the 00:55:30 mark, County Attorney Brad Farrar offered fa four-minute summary of the various options and “limited tools” available to the County for code enforcement. At one point he stated:
“It is a pretty big thing to get sued by your own government,”in reference to the option of a request for a court injunction.
01:12:00 Natasha Person spoke from the audience, and stated her comments were “not about the FILOT,” before discussing House of Raeford’s record.
01:14:28: Chairman Bunker issued a final warning about addressing agenda items during the public comment period on nonagenda items.
01:17:40: Jody Madden discussed the economic impact of the equestrian community and addressed the “ public health problem” posed by avian flu; before ending with the statement “there is no chicken statue” in Aiken.
01:20:00. Michael Frazier discussed the Prayer and Repentance Parade/March that was held in Aiken earlier in April.
01:22:45: State House of Representatives District 81 candidate MacKenzie “Mack” Morris again addressed the HOR record.
The “informal meeting of the whole” was then adjourned, and Council voted to enter into its second closed-door Executive Session of the day, with Chairman Bunker informing the audience that House of Raeford would not be a part of any Executive Session discussion.
The April 16th meeting comments are likely to be reduced in County Council’s meeting minutes to a few sentences at most. This reductionism is routine in our County government.
For example, one person expressed support for, and eight people expressed concerns and/or opposition to, the HOR chicken plant during the “Informal Meeting of the Whole” at Council’s March 19, 2024, meeting.
The fact that someone spoke in favor did not make the Meeting Minutes. The concerns expressed by eight county residents were reduced to:
“Several citizens spoke in opposition to the chicken plant coming to Aiken County.”
Council approved the March 19th Meeting Minutes on April 16th without question.
Aiken County’s evolving and confusing wastewater management program has become a hot topic during the ongoing debate regarding the House of Raeford’s (HOR) proposed chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant. The complex issue of wastewater system capacity was the key factor in Aiken County Council’s recent decision to allow its tax incentive package for HOR to “die” during its April 16, 2024, public meeting—even though Council did not share that information during the meeting.
Still, one end result has been a heightened public awareness that wastewater capacity at the County’s old Horse Creek Wastewater Plant is a key limiting factor for Aiken County economic growth. This dynamic situation will remain in the public eye while House of Raeford and its allies in state government reorganize efforts to locate the project somewhere in Aiken County, which is considered one of the company’s few viable geographic locations due to the nature of an industry that requires input (live chickens) to be close to slaughterhouses and processing plants.
(Update, May 3, 2024
by Don Moniak April 24, 2024
As described in $1.1 Million Worth of Water Bills, the fifty-year-old Horse Creek Wastewater Plant is responsible for cleaning up, and keeping clean, Horse Creek—a stream that has endured scores of years of discharges from textile mills which rendered it, and Langley Pond, biologically sterile bodies of water until the late 1970’s to early 1980’s. This depends on one’s definition of ecological recovery, as a fish consumption advisory first issued in the 1980’s remains to this day (Figure 1).
Horse Creek Wastewater Plant, operated by the Aiken County Public Service Authority, is also responsible for processing sewage from multiple sewer and water districts across the Western portion of the county. Treated wastewater must meet State and Federal water quality standards before being released into the Savannah River.
Although the plant’s current permitted capacity is 20 million gallons per day (MGD), work towards future capacity of 26 MGD has been described by two contractors, Feyen Zylstra and GMC, who have completed an electrical upgrade and a plant design study, respectively.
Figure 1. DHEC fish consumption advisory, with a drained Langley Pond in the background. The advisory remains in place, but signs are routinely removed and destroyed by dissenting locals. (Photo by Laura Lance, 2015)
The County Council’s Controversial but Popular Non-Decision
At its regular public meeting one week ago on April 16th, Aiken County Council held the Second Reading of a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) Ordinance which would have authorized the County to negotiate and execute a tax incentive agreement for the proposed House of Raeford’s $185 million chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant near Interstate 20’s Exit 22 (see Pages 6-41 of Council Agenda packet for full details of the Ordinance).
The Second Reading was not a Public Hearing where public comment is accepted; that process was tentatively scheduled for May 7th if the Second Reading of the Ordinance was approved.
The proposal also involved a controversial City of Aiken ordinance to allow for deep sewer and water rate discounts for the company. Aiken City Council put that process on hold while the County reached a decision.
The Second Reading of the FILOT Ordinance led to what was essentially a non-decision. After a Motion to Table that would have returned the Ordinance to a future meeting agenda, no Council member made a Motion to Approve (or Disapprove) the Ordinance. As a result, the Ordinance, as written, “died” and cannot return for at least one year.
When Chairman Gary Bunker was asked what the failure of a Motion to proceed meant, he responded by saying:
“It means it is dead as Marley’s ghost.”
(A video with low-quality audio of the Second Reading can be viewed here).
Chairman Bunker’s description of the lack of a Motion to move forward incited a roar of applause among the hundreds of people who packed County Chambers—as well as thousands of County residents who did not attend but heard the news within a few hours. (County Council still does not live stream its meetings or post the audio to its website).
The news was tempered somewhat by comments from Councilman Kelly Mobley, who was known to oppose the plant but had voted to table the Second Reading. Mr. Mobley explained that House of Raeford could still attempt to move forward without the proposed tax incentive.
Although not cited during the Second Reading, the primary reason for this rare, if not unprecedented, Council decision to allow a FILOT Ordinance to “die” was the issue of wastewater processing and permitting capacity, and the lack of sufficient allocation reserves for existing users. The wastewater issue was discussed during a Council Work Session that preceded the Public Meeting, but Council failed to share information from that Work Session during the meeting.
However, it was a topic of public discussion before the meeting; and in an April 16th letter (Figure 2) sent by Governor Henry McMaster to Chairman Bunker that was publicly released hours before the meeting. In his last minute intervention, McMaster urged Council to delay the process while his office sought financial help with the County’s wastewater capacity. Between McMaster’s controversial letter of interference in a local issue, and Councilman Mobley’s cautionary statements, any assumed finality of the project remains highly uncertain.
Figure 3: Governor McMaster letter. Note the cc to the Department of Agriculture, a strong backer of the project. (Click to enlarge)
Heightened Public Awareness of Wastewater Management
Still, in the wake County Council’s decision, or lack thereof, management of Aiken County’s highly variable sewage streams that are processed at the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant (Figure 3) is now prominent in the public eye.
Aiken County citizens are now more fully aware that the capacity and physical condition of the county-owned Horse Creek Wastewater Plant (HCWP), which has allowed industrial and residential growth, is also a limiting factor for future growth across much of Aiken County; particularly the western, more urban half of this relatively vast county. In fact, at least one rumor is even circulating that a moratorium on capacity is imminent (1).
In short, citizens learned that County Council’s determination was that almost all present and future HCWP permitted capacity is already currently allocated, and the City of Aiken in particular is very close to reaching its capacity; only 300 to 500 thousand gallons of reserve capacity is believed to exist at HCWP. However, there has been an ongoing third-party audit of the HCWP capacity issues for nearly a year that could alter the equation.
As a result, the issue remains complex and not fully understood. This is reflected by a summary of the situation* by Chairman Bunker, who has a deep knowledge of the issues surrounding HCWP. In response to questions posed via email (2) on April 17th, he wrote that:
“Capacity is the total amount that the (wastewater) plant can process (20 millions gallons per day (MPD) while usage is what the plant normally processes in actuality (~12M gpd).
Aiken County is the wholesaler for the sewage capacity. It sells capacity to the “retailers” such as the City of Aiken, City of North Augusta, Breezy Hill, Valley (Public Service Authority) etc. As was discussed (during the April 16th Work Session) Aiken County only has a minimal amount (~0.3 to 0.5 MGPD) left to sell.
So in regards to HOR, the proposed plant was going to be located in the City of Aiken’s sewer district. So their usage would have gone against the City of Aiken’s capacity limit. Normally, we would assume that if the COA has a capacity of X, and a usage of Y, then the unused capacity would be ZX minus Y. So I assume the HOR was counting on the ability to use some of the Z unused capacity. Then the unused capacity would be Z (X minus Y). So I assume the HOR was counting on the ability to use some of the Z unused capacity.
Except that my understanding is that Z doesn’t exist – that this unused capacity has been committed by the City of a variety of other projects. So we need to add Z’ to the equation – the unused and uncommitted capacity. And evidently for the City this Z’ is a minimal value.
The irony of the HoR situation is that Aiken County has had an ongoing capacity audit underway since before the chicken plant became an issue. (3)
But as I told the Aiken Standard, even if this 6M gpd was magically made available last Tuesday evening, I doubt Council would have dedicated 1.7M gpd of this resource (nearly 30%) to a single user. The outcome would have remained unchanged.”
Figure 3. Aiken County’s Horse Creek Wastewater Plant in Beech Island.
City of Aiken’s Currently Limited Capacity
The City of Aiken’s limited capacity issue was discussed during Aiken City Council’s September 11, 2023, worksession. The issue then was a request for a capacity transfer to Valley Public Service Authority for Turner Development’s proposed Weeping Willow residential development outside of North Augusta.
In that Work Session, the city’s utility department reported that the remaining allocated wastewater plant capacity was only 0.6 million gallons per day. (Figure 4)
Figure 4: Meeting Minutes for September 11, 2024 Work Sesssion. Click to Enlarge.
The issue of plant upgrades and operations may eventually fade somewhat from the public eye, but in the short term will remain prominent.
This is because, although the FILOT Ordinance is dead and the City of Aiken has opted to not pursue its own water and sewer rate discount ordinance for HOR, the chicken plant project is far from dead. The issue could return in one year, if not earlier, as House of Raeford all but promised to continue its efforts in a divisive statement (Figure 5) made days after County Council opted to allow the tax incentive Ordinance to “die,” at least for one year.
Figure 5. House of Raeford’s public statement. It is untrue that Council Council alloted 30 minutes to study the details of the project. At least two closed-door meetings on the subject were held in previous months, and Council delayed the Second Reading for one month to further investigate wastewater management and other project issues fueled by increasing public discontent over the proposed location and impacts of the project. House of Raeford also failed to mention that one City Council member, Andrea Gregory, was opposed to the project due to water issues; and that at least one other Councilmember, Gail Diggs, had also changed her mind. In an April 16th email, Ms. Diggs wrote that, “I know County Council will do what’s in the best interest of our citizens, and that’s not to bring the House of Raeford to Aiken.” For its part, House of Raeford’s commitment to “transparency” is undermined by its failure to divulge project details beyond economic benefits and the company’s charitable programs.
Footnotes
(1) The extent of awareness was highlighted in part near the end of last night’s Aiken City Council meeting. At the 1:23:30 mark of the meeting, during the second “public comments on nonagenda items” period, Aiken resident Curt Hanna posed the question:
“I do have one question, and this is just ignorance, I just heard it today, is it true that there is a moratorium on sewer capacity as of Friday.”
City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh responded by dismissing the existence of any such moratorium by citing and describing the ongoing audit.
4/17/24 Email sent to Chairman Bunker, Council, and Staff, which included Figure 1 above.
“Good Morning Chairman Bunker,
I was prepared to make comments and ask general questions about the Horse Creek Plant and sewage allocations last night, but unfortunately was not called up to speak. The sewer capacity issue extends well beyond the HOR plant, and has been raised during City of Aiken (COA) residential development discussions.
During the work session last night the issue of Horse Creek Wastewater Plant (HCWP) capacity was discussed. My notes from the Work Session show that:
1. The Horse Creek Wastewater Plant (HCWP) has a permitted capacity of 20 million gallons per day.
Question: Is the County preparing to submit a permit amendment to DHEC to increase capacity to 26 MGD or more? Or has it already been submitted?
2. HCWP currently processes 12-13 MGD.
Is was unclear to me whether that is currently the maximum capacity due to physical constraints and that upgrades will allow for the full 20 million of permitted use, or if the upgrades will allow for 26 MGD of processing capability, as reported in this Aiken Standard story.
“GMC completed a study (Phase I) for the Horse Creek Pollution Control Facility and a design (Phase II) based on the findings of the study. This process provided a confident course of action for the utility. As a result of the project, the facility now has a primary design capacity of 26 MGD with a peak of 65 MGD and a secondary capacity of 20 MGD with a peak of 40 MGD, utilizing a 20-MG offline equalization basin.”
What is the current physical capacity, what is the anticipated permitted capacity, and will physical capacity match permitted capacity?
3. The 20 MGD of permitted use is currently allocated to the various water and sewer authorities: Aiken, North Augusta, Valley Public Service, Breezy Hill, New Ellenton (?), etc.
a. According to the September 25, 2023, Aiken City Council work session minutes, (pages 3-5 and screenshot below), the City of Aiken is allocated 7.4 MGD of the capacity and is using 6.8 MGD. (see below). The same minutes state that Valley PSA is allocated 8.6 MGD.
Question(s) Is it true that more than half of what HCWP currently processes derives from the COA sewer system? Will COA be granted an increased allocation proportionate to other users?
(I have tried to obtain information on allocations since about that time from HCWP officials but was told the numbers would not be available until after an audit was completed).
b. The allocations are being reviewed by a third party auditor who is also auditing plant usage, capacity, and capacity allocations.
c. Brian Sanders stated that, at present, 300,000 to 500,000 of existing permitted capacity is excess capacity—it is not allocated to any party and could be “sold” to any of the districts.
Question(s): Given the expected increase in HCWP capacity, Is the issue of the available capacity for a major user, HOR, primarily one of County capacity, or one of the City of Aiken’s allocated capacity? Are other service districts being constrained in any way by COA demands, and will COA capacity be raised much more than the 7.4 MGD currently allocated?
I believe this issue is complex enough that the County should issue a white paper on the situation, one in Plain English and one that outlines the current and future limitations of the HCWP, especially as it affects future growth. The paper should also identify the expected operational life of the facility, a full accounting of recent upgrade costs, and the estimates of future maintenance and upgrade costs.
Thank you,
Don Moniak”
The response is shown below:
Click to Enlarge. The referenced Aiken Standard story is here.
(3) When I requested capacity data from County officials in September 2023, the response was that an audit was underway and answers could not be provided until it was complete. It remains a work in progress.
* The following information was obtained on May 2, 2024:
First Facebook Livestream Scheduled for March 19th Public Meeting;, But Do Wear a Mask and Keep Your Distance.
by Don Moniak March 15, 2024 (Update and Correction: County Council has not yet approved the live stream. It only remains under consideration. The public notification was made in error. When informed of the public health emergency error within the notification, County officials did not state that the Public Notification of a Public Hearing livestream announcement or any other part of the notice was inaccurate. There was no public notification that a FB Live recording was not scheduled.)
The Board of the Aiken County Public School District, North Augusta City Council, and Aiken City Council—as well as its three decision making bodies (Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and Board of Zoning of Appeals)—all livestream their meetings for remote viewers in the spirit of openness and access. The City of Aiken has meetings archived on You Tube that date back nearly a decade.
In contrast, the only time County Council has live streamed its legislative process, for constituents who were unable to attend, was during the early days of the COVID-19 public health emergency. With Council’s regular meetings being as short as half an hour, and rarely longer than ninety minutes, any resident in Jackson, Monetta, downtown Windsor, suburban Wagener, or other far flung areas of this Rhode Island-sized county can spend more time traveling to and from meetings than at the actual meetings.
This is about to change. After more than a month of prodding by County Councilman Kelly Mobley (R-North Augusta), who was responding to constituent concerns as well as the persistent voices of a few meeting regulars, Aiken County Council will begin the positive step of live streaming its meetings via the county’s Facebook page.
Council’s Administrative Committee discussed the matter with County staff during its February 20th meeting. The primary objections from staff, and a few Council members, to modernizing public meeting access were costs and trepidation over potential Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
The costs issue is expected, as Aiken County government is notoriously frugal; many would say cheap. At the same time, not a single person in the room had any sense of what the costs were; a recommendation was made to reach out to the cities for more information.
The FOIA issue seems more contrived than real. County code already dictates that audio recordings of Council meetings must be made available upon request, with a possible slight fee of about three dollars. The idea that there will be requests for video, when the video is provided for free during the meeting and can easily be archived for future viewing, seems far fetched.
Councilman Mobley eventually swayed the group, stating that “something is better than nothing,” and that “in this age, there are affordable and easy options.”
Wear Your Mask?
The renewed effort, which debuts on Tuesday, March 19th at 7 p.m., has already experienced two gaffes.
First, the public notice (Figure 1) for the livestream that was published in the Aiken Standard on March 2nd was a cut and paste of COVID-era public notices that informed attendees that mask use and distancing rules will be observed “due to the current public health emergency.” The reason given for the error by County staff was that:
“The project’s attorney published the public hearing (notice). Aiken county did not.”
Figure 1. Published notice for the March 19th AIken County Council public meeting. Aiken Standard, March 2, 2024.
The second gaffe involves the comment period. In this instance, citizens were informed they must comment on March 19th agenda items by noon on March 5th. There is, of course, no link to an agenda where items can be found; only the one-sentence, legalistic, and meaningless title of a proposed ordinance. There will be no agenda until March 18th, the day before the meeting.
Aiken County Council has a quirky system for releasing its agendas and associated documents that is also in need of a modern update.
First, County staff is mandated to provide the materials to Council members on the Friday before regular Tuesday meetings. Then, by 8:30 Monday morning, staff must provide the materials via email to any news media or regular citizens who have requested to be on a meeting notification list; a South Carolina FOIA requirement (2).
Thus, County Code allows for Council to receive agenda documents four days ahead of meetings; while their constituents must wait until the day before meetings. In contrast, Aiken City Council and its Boards, Commissions, and Committees publicly release agendas and related documents four days before meetings.
To make County business even more opaque, agendas are squirreled away behind an online layer of fine print. The County’s “Calendar of Events” that provides the links to agendas and documents occupies about one-quarter of its homepage, and the links are tiny and nearly indecipherable. (Figure 2).
Figure 2: The County Calendar, where agendas and associated documents are posted.
Still, the livestream implementation is a positive step towards more open government. If nothing else, county residents at least have an opportunity to view their elected officials in action; without having to make a one hour roundtrip for a half-hour meeting.
Viewers should be aware, however, that County Council meetings are much drier and more regimented than those held by their elected officials in Aiken and North Augusta. There is seldom a discussion about agenda items, and decisions about the majority of agenda items—known as the consent agenda—are made beforehand in Committee meetings (3)
Footnotes
(1) In terms of other forms of modern information access, Aiken County government remains mired in a previous generation. The County website has not been updated in years, and is in places a labyrinth. With the exception of its Parks and Recreation and anti-litter Departments, social media is not used to convey news and messages. The main Facebook page occasionally features photos of adoptable dogs, but few notices of meetings or upcoming events.
(2) To be placed on the email notification list for Aiken County Council meeting notices, which include agenda attachments, contact kgorby@aikencountysc.gov
(3) Monthly Committee meetings (Development, Administrative, and Judicial and Public Safety) are currently being held in small rooms, instead of the spacious Council Chambers. The meetings are characterized by Committee and Staff members siting at a table with their backs to fellow Council members and any citizens who wish to attend. The only positive attribute of this arrangement is that the rooms are not smoke-filled.
Aiken County has spent millions of dollars redeveloping Langley Pond Park in the past five years. More than $2 million has been spent on competitive rowing infrastructure, where teams from mostly across the Southeast currently converge twice a year for regattas.
The investments have been made for economic reasons, to attract competitive rowing clubs, but not for local participation. Opportunities for County residents are not a priority. There is no competitive rowing program available in the Aiken County Public Schools; last year’s regattas did not feature a single team from Aiken County.
The County’s effort to attract spectators also lags. This week’s Augusta Invitational, which will close the pond to other users, was not publicized on any of the County’s social media pages until two days before the event.
by Don Moniak March 7, 2024 (Updated March 8, 2024)
Aiken County’s Langley Pond Park is ideally suited for the challenging and rewarding Olympic-level sport of competitive rowing; the U.S. Olympic team trained there in preparation for the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta.
It is also an exacting sport, one of the few that requires continuous feedback and coaching. Teams have to operate in near perfect coordination. Unlike in football where a missed block or tackle can be of little to no consequence, a single errant or missed stroke in a scull can easily change the results from being a medal contender to a mediocre finish.
The 285-acre pond’s 2,000-meter eight-lane race course was the venue for two annual regional rowing regattas prior to 2014. These events were placed on hold for nine years when the old Langley Pond Dam was found to be leaking, and unstable enough to warrant spending $13.5 million to replace the it, a process that closed the pond to public use for eight years (1).
The two regattas returned in 2023. This Saturday, March 9th, the Park will host the one-day Augusta Invitational Regatta. Another regatta, the two-day Master’s Southeast Regional, is scheduled for June 22-23rd.
Organized by the Augusta Rowing Club, the Invitational has 91 entries across 19 different events. At least 88 of these entries belong to five out-of-state clubs based in Peachtree City, Charlotte, Asheville, and two in Knoxville, TN. The Augusta Rowing Club represents the local rowing community; three other entries are listed as unaffiliated and from “anywhere U.S.A.”
Aiken County has failed to publicize Saturday’s regatta in any meaningful fashion. The first notice on the County’s Langley Pond Facebook page was not posted until two days before the event. No notice is on the County’s home page or Facebook page. An answering machine greeted two efforts on Thursday to call the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism office for more information. There was no return call.
The $1.15 million Langley Pond Finishing Line Tower. The photo, taken from the Aiken County property database, was taken in June 2020, while the pond was still drawn down during the replacement dam construction.
The County’s Investments
Even before the new dam was completed, Aiken County officials were investing heavily (Table 1) in competitive rowing infrastructure in the hopes of drawing larger, more prominent tournaments. Since 2018–even before the new Langley Dam project was completed—the County has constructed a Finishing Line Tower (Figure 1), added anchor piles for the race course, installed a launch dock, and plans a 30-foot x 120-foot spectator dock.
Table 1: Recent Aiken County Langley Pond Rowing Venue Investments
Links are to procurement documents. *The first procurement process in 2017 was cancelled “due to budget constraints.” **Lowest Bid, only listed as recommended pending Council approval. The final award price is not listed on the county’s procurement webpage, and officials have yet to respond to questions about the final bid awards. *** Total costs are for construction only, and do not include design and procurement costs
The ribbon cutting for the starting docks (Figure 2), whose installation this year closed the pond to public use for two weeks, is scheduled for this Friday at 3 p.m. The only visible notification of it was on County Council’s March 5th Work Session Agenda, titled “Ribbon Cutting for Fishing Docks.” (2)
Figure 2: Visual of Starting Line Docks at augustarowing.org website. The Finishing Line Tower is on the left-hand side at the top of the photo, 2,000 meters away.
Economic Impact, Not Local Participation
The impetus for these investments has always been the potential economic impact. In 2013, one county official claimed there was an “incredible economic impact” from two regattas that collectively drew a few hundred participants. “Exposure for the county” was another often cited rationale for investments in rowing infrastructure, which officials hoped would bring “2,000 or more” rowers to future events. These and other unsubstantiated claims were repeated without question by local media.
According to a 2016 Aiken Standard story, County officials claimed an estimated annual loss of revenues to County businesses of $2.4 million; and a speculated potential economic impact loss of $1.8 million from the loss of a single regatta. Those estimates were based on “direct visitor spending, which factors in the number of athletes and spectators attending Langley Pond events and the hotel rooms in which they would have stayed.”
However, multiplying the number of athletes and spectators by spending estimates does not equal revenues for only Aiken County businesses. For example, the Augusta Rowing Club’s website lists only two Augusta hotels offering group discount rates for this Saturday’s Regatta: the Marriot Crown Hotel on Stevens Creek Road and the Holiday Inn Express on Broad Street. The Rowing Club’s website has no link to Aiken attractions, restaurants, or hotels. (3)
The numbers are also suspect given the size of the events. By comparison, in 2021 the Aiken Standard reported that Hitchcock Woods Foundation Treasurer Larry Byers told a legislative Equine Industries Study Committee that the cancellation of the 2020 Aiken Steeplechase, considered to be the second largest annual sporting event in the CSRA, resulted in loss of “roughly $3.8 million.”
In contrast to its large and continued investment for economic impact, the County has invested minimally, if at all, in the development of local programs. Aiken County’s Public Schools have no current rowing programs or plans for any (4), even though the County’s 2014-2024 Comprehensive Plan called for collaborative parks and recreation projects with the Schools:
“PRT may also wish to explore entering into agreements with the Aiken County Public School District for joint use of the District’s sports, playground, and recreational facilities.” (Page 107).
The potential for local programs at the Langley Pond rowing venue is considerable. This past Tuesday night, Aiken County Administrator Brian Sanders told Aiken County Council that the end result of the ongoing improvements will be a “world-class” rowing venue.
Yet, the spending to date has largely subsidized out-of-town rowing clubs and college teams; while offering little to County residents and failing to fund any development of homegrown talent.
At present, Langley Pond rowing is perhaps symbolic of local government, where taxpayers are more often mere spectators in decision-making processes. In this case, in the hopes of “incredible” economic impacts, the County has gambled $2 million of taxpayer money. Meanwhile, county residents are barely notified they can watch from the shore, and no consideration is given to investing in rowing equipment that could be shared by Aiken County’s public schools.
To add to the disparities, while millions are invested in the Langley Pond rowing race course, smaller County parks are neglected, and some are even scheduled to be closed (5).
Soon to come: Aiken County’s Disposable Parks.
Footnotes
(1) Aiken County took ownership, and the associated liability, of the Langley Pond Dam in 1994. In 2010, a SC Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) dam inspector returned a “satisfactory” rating.
In 2012, DHEC reported cracks in the abutment/inlet structure and advised monitoring it and a crack in the ring wing wall at the emergency spillway; clearing trees adjacent to the spillway, and removing vegetation from the slopes.
In 2014, a man walking his dog observed discolored water seeping from the dam; and a leak was found indicating unstable conditions.
In 2015, the regatta events were cancelled.
In 2016, County Council approved a $12 million general obligation bond to replace the dam; and obtained a $2 million FEMA grant.
The project was completed in January 2021. One year later the redeveloped Park was dedicated.
(2) There are no “fishing docks” listed on the County’s procurement webpage. Inquiries made this week about “fishing docks” vs rowing ducks have so far been ignored by County officials.
(3) The County’s Langley Pond website has a link to Country Inn and Suites on Whiskey Road, but the link was inoperative this week.
(4) An inquiry to the Aiken School District, and response from the School District:
(5) At its March 5, 2024 County Council meeting, Council refused to require staff to answer the question as to how many parks, and which parks, are scheduled to be closed. The question was deferred to staff for a future answer. There has been no answer to a subsequent March 6th followup email asking if there is an implementation plan for divesting of parks and a list of parks scheduled to be closed.
The current Capital Project Sales Tax proposed project list only considers funding the facility needs for four parks (Roy Warner, Harrison-Caver, Langley Pond, and Boyd Pond).
