Category Archives: Aiken County Government

Aiken County Government, August 2026, Editorials, New Development & Industry

Transparency and Openness Needed In Aiken County Council Public Hearings

2 Comments

Transparency and Openness Needed During Aiken County Council’s Public Hearings on Ordinances Involving Fee-in-Lieu-of-Tax and Incentive Agreements

By Vicki Simons
August 16, 2026

If you learned that people elected into office — purportedly to represent you — have been making decisions without transparency and openness, how would that make you feel?

Furthermore, if you knew that there was something that you could do to change that situation for the better, wouldn’t you want to do it?

The Eye-Opening Series of Events

In 2023, Aiken County Council approved by majority (not unanimous) vote an ordinance regarding a Fee in Lieu of Tax and Incentive Agreement for an entity referred to as “Project Sabal.”

When at-that-time Councilman Kelley Mobley (District 4) and current Councilman Mike Kellems (District 2) objected to the ordinance, the eyes of my understanding were opened:

Regarding at least Project Sabal — and who knows how many projects before that — Council members had been kept in the dark regarding the entity with whom they were preparing to enter into a legally binding contract. 

What Is A Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreement?

Before I proceed, I need to back up and cover some background.

According to the South Carolina Department of Revenue:

A FILOT is a Fee in Lieu of Tax agreement, which is a contractual Property Tax incentive between a company and the county where the company’s project is located.

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…

In this article, I shall refer to all of the following as FILOT Agreements (or FILOTs):

  • “Fee In Lieu of Ad Valorem Taxes Agreement”;
  • “Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements”;
  • “Fee in Lieu of Tax and Incentive Agreements”; and
  • “Fee in Lieu of Property Tax Agreements.”
Where is Documentation About Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements?

As it concerns counties within South Carolina, at least 3 places in the South Carolina Code of Laws cover Fee in Lieu of [Property] Tax agreements:

Regarding FILOTs in Aiken County, they are extended:

  • either to businesses that already exist here and are looking to expand;
  • or to businesses looking to set up shop here for the first time. 

According to Aiken County’s Code of Ordinances (aka Code of Laws), Sec. 2-63. – Legislative action., 

  • “(a) The council shall take legislative action by ordinance. …”‘;
  • “(b) With the exception of emergency ordinances, all ordinances shall be read at three (3) public meetings of the council, on three (3) separate days, with an interval of not less than seven (7) days between the second and third reading; provided that a verbatim reading of an ordinance shall not be required unless such reading is requested by a member. Public hearings may be held on the same day as a reading of the ordinance is made. …”; and
  • “d) Public hearings, after reasonable public notice, must be held before final council action…”
How Are FILOT Ordinances Worded?

In the past, in Council’s agendas, the titles of ordinances involving FILOT Agreements have typically been written similar to (or exactly like) this, with the project name completed:

Ordinance Authorizing (1) The Execution And Delivery Of A Fee In Lieu Of Tax And Incentive Agreement By And Between Aiken County, South Carolina And A Company Identified For The Time Being As Project ___________ (The “Company”) With Respect To The Establishment Of Certain Facilities In The County (The “Project”); (2) The Benefits Of A Multi-County Industrial Or Business Park To Be Made Available To The Company And The Project; (3) Certain Special Source Revenue Credits In Connection With The Project; And (4) Other Matters Relating Thereto.

To get the details — which can be dozens of pages long — one has to dig down into the “CC Docs” document that accompanies the meeting agenda where the Public Hearing is listed.

Information Withheld from Aiken County Citizens Regarding FILOT Agreement Details

In my speech during the May 2, 2023, meeting of Aiken County Council — which followed the vote on Project Sabal — I posed the following question and comments:

How are Aiken County citizens supposed to talk intelligently during Public Hearings regarding various “projects” when the company’s name and the scope of those “projects” are withheld from them?

… During the April 18, 2023, Regular Session, numerous Council members spoke during a Public Hearing about “Project Sabal.”

… by the time a “project” makes it to a Public Hearing, it is my opinion that the mystery, the secrecy, and the lack of transparency must be stripped away so that the public can speak intelligently before Council on this matter.

I feel compelled to remind you that Article I, § 1, of The South Carolina Constitution says:  “All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government.” (6)

Furthermore, we read in Title 30, Chapter 4 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, The Freedom of Information Act, in Section 30-4-15:  “The General Assembly finds that it is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that citizens shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in the formulation of public policy. …” (7)

Therefore, I am requesting that in every future meeting, before there is a Public Hearing about any “project,” that the name of the company and the scope of its business be made known so that the citizens of Aiken County — and even Council members — can make fully informed decisions and speak intelligently about the business that may be about to happen in our own backyard.

FILOT Details?

If one searched online for something like “SC Department of Revenue list of Fee in Lieu of Tax agreements”, one would possibly receive a result like this: 

“The South Carolina Department of Revenue (SCDOR) does not maintain or publish a centralized public statewide list or database of individual Fee in Lieu of Tax (FILOT) agreements.”

In order to find specific FILOT Agreements, one is directed to:

  • either contact county offices;
  • or search County Council records.

So, on May 15, 2023, I requested pursuant to Section 30-4-20 and Section 30-4-30 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (the Freedom of Information Act), specific information regarding FILOTs in Aiken County.

In one June 6, 2023, speech before Aiken County Council, specifically during the Public Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2023 – 2024 Budget, I said:

What bearing do Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements passed by Aiken County Council have on the Fiscal Year 2023 – 2024 budget?

During the May 16, 2023, Aiken County Council meeting, I informed the Council that I had submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to learn some very specific information about “Fee in Lieu of Tax” agreements that Aiken County Council has passed by majority vote over the last 10 years. (1)

I asked for:
— a list of the agreements;
— the votes cast by the Council;
— the fees that were paid; and
— a calculation of the total taxes that would have been paid by each of the project names, businesses, and other entities — from the time they came into Aiken County through Fiscal Year 2022 – 2023 — had they not paid the fee up-front.

I have received from the County Attorney enough information to be able to summarize some things for you.

From his first email:
(1) The County would have all of the individual documents that are part of economic development projects, a list of which were named, and from which information would need to be gleaned and put into the format I requested. 
(2) The County is not believed to have a comprehensive listing of projects, as each agreement is “a distinct economic matter for the County.” 
(3) Furthermore, “the FOIA does not require a public body to create a document (such as a list or a spreadsheet) it does not have at the time of [an] FOIA request.”
(4) I understand that each entity’s potential tax payment outside a Fee in Lieu of Tax agreement would have been hypothetical and is not something the County would calculate and set forth in a record.  

From his second email:
(1) He reached out to the President of the Western SC Economic Development Partnership, who provided him with information.
(2) There were numerous attachments to his second email, including:
— a spreadsheet containing a list of 24 entities with “investments” ranging from $2.5 million to $400 million; and 
— 9 PDF documents, for each of the years 2013 through 2021, each of which was entitled “South Carolina Department of Revenue Fee In Lieu of Tax Status Report.”
(3) For each of the Status Reports, the columns are entitled [with my notes in brackets]: 
— SID/SFX [undefined]; – Owner/Operator [entity’s name];
— Schedule [a code, also undefined]; 
— Term [in years, usually ranging from 15 to 40 years]; 
— Type [“Little”, “Big”, “Simplified”, and “Super”];
— Investment Years [beginning through ending years];
— Status [“Open” or “Closed”];
— Certified [date]; – Contractual Amt ($);
— Gross Cost ($); and – Fee ($).

I received for each of the years 2013 – 2021, a South Carolina Department of Revenue Fee ln Lieu of Tax Status Report.

Please note that the time frame (“Term”) for each FILOT in the Reports that I received ranges from 15 to 40 years. 

So, it is no trivial matter that a company can request — and Aiken County Government can enter into — a FILOT Agreement spanning 4 decades!

Limits of Non-Disclosure Agreements?

During my second June 6, 2023, speech to Aiken County Council — and regarding a different entity with whom the Council was about to enter into a FILOT Agreement — I said:

While I understand that a Non-Disclosure Agreement (or “NDA”) (5) requires contracting parties to keep material, knowledge, or information confidential, by the time a proposed “Fee in Lieu of Tax” agreement makes it to a Public Hearing, it is my opinion that any and all mystery, secrecy, and lack of transparency must be stripped away so that the public understands what may be about to happen in our own backyard.

On behalf of the citizens, taxpayers, and voters of Aiken County, South Carolina, I am requesting — before Aiken County Council takes a vote on this — that Council reveals the entire nature and scope of what is behind and concerning “a Fee Agreement By And Between Aiken County, South Carolina And [Entity Name] Providing For A Payment Of A Fee In Lieu Of Taxes And Other Matters Related Thereto.”

The reason why I am asking for this information is because during the April 18, 2023, Regular Session of Aiken County Council, numerous Council members spoke during a Public Hearing about a project, during which it became apparent that Council members were NOT familiar with the company, the nature, or the scope of the project on which it was preparing to vote.

I feel compelled to remind you that Article I, § 1, of The South Carolina Constitution says:  “All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government.” (6)

Again, I am requesting that the nature and scope of the business behind this proposed Fee in Lieu of Tax agreement be fully disclosed before Council votes on it.

Explanation of FILOT Ordinances by Aiken County Council

Over time since 2023, I have observed that Aiken County Council’s Chairman has been slightly more transparent and open regarding FILOT ordinances.

It has also been my observation that a number of economic development opportunities — that give rise to FILOT agreements — have been brought before Council by the director of the Western SC Economic Development Partnership (WSCEDP).

Since 2023 — and I think in direct response to the speeches I have made calling for transparency and openness regarding FILOT Agreements — I have also observed that the WSCEDP director has been a little bit more forthcoming with details about the entities with which Aiken County are preparing to enter into a legally binding contract.

In my March 5, 2024, speech before Aiken County Council, I said that:

  • the Project Sabal name hid the company name; 
  • there were many unknowns; and 
  • in spite of all of that, [a majority of] Council voted in favor of the FILOT ordinance.

In my September 17, 2024, speech before Aiken County Council, I addressed the “big reveal” that “Project Sabal” was actually Meta and I further said:

Regardless of the size of the investment and the number of new jobs that any company will be bringing to Aiken County, the highest importance is to uphold the self-evident truths that we have a Creator, that all men are created equal, and that He endowed each of us with certain unalienable Rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (9)

Recall that:
— Article I, § 1, of The South Carolina Constitution begins: “All political power is vested in and derived from the people only…”; (10) and
— The First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States secures our God-endowed rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (11)

In my opinion, Aiken County Council and Aiken County Government must revise Chapter 17 of the Aiken County Code of Ordinances about Planning, such that all future economic development here honors and upholds these precious truths. (12)

About Public Hearings in General

I have observed that Aiken County Council’s Public Hearings on various matters have taken place during the First Reading, Second Reading, or Third Reading.

I do not know why Public Hearings are held during different readings on different kinds of ordinances.

When it comes to FILOT ordinances, I have observed in the past that each one’s related Public Hearing takes place during the Third Reading (when there is no further time to consider the matter).

During my June 17, 2025, speech to Aiken County Council, I said:

How can Aiken County Council increase transparency and public trust when it comes to Public Hearings?

Per the definition that I gave in my February 4 speech (A), Public Hearings have two purposes:
1. Citizens, taxpayers, and voters can express their opinions about the ordinance; and
2. Aiken County Council needs to answer questions from their constituents.

Second, when Aiken County Council is considering an ordinance that requires a Public Hearing — especially one that offers a financial incentive — Council needs to ensure that there is adequate time for research, meaning that the Public Hearing for said ordinance needs to be held during the Second Reading, not the Third Reading.

A clause from Aiken County’s Code of Ordinances, Section 2-63, paragraph (d), reads: (B)

“A public hearing will be held on all pending ordinances no later than prior to the meeting at which third and final reading is scheduled…”

It does not read that a public hearing will be held prior to the third and final reading during the same meeting. 

Third, Aiken County Council members need time on these ordinances to consider input from all Aiken County voters (your bosses), including those who:
— Either are unable to attend the Public Hearing in person;
— Or become aware of information that was not known when the Public Hearing took place. (C)

In 2023 and 2024, I called on Aiken County Council to ensure that there is adequate time between Public Hearings and Third Readings of ordinances. (D)

During Council’s June 3, 2025, meeting, a Public Hearing on an ordinance offering a financial incentive for a “project” took place during the Third Reading, not the Second Reading. (E)

That makes three such situations this year: Project Wisteria, Project Calypso, and Project Sunflower. (F)(G)(E)

This lack of transparency is unacceptable to me! 

So, let’s fix it!

Please note that the Code of Ordinances may have been updated on this matter since I read this speech.

However, I have pressed more than once for Aiken County Council to hold Public Hearings for FILOTs on the Second Reading instead of the Third Reading.

To-date, Aiken County Council has made no move to make this happen.

Questions Remain Regarding FILOTs

Since I was so concerned about the lack of transparency and openness concerning FILOT agreements entered into in Aiken County, I compiled a list of what I considered to be “fundamental questions” that I believed Council needed to answer — or have answered — during FILOT Public Hearings.

I delivered the most recent iteration of these fundamental questions during a Public Hearing on a FILOT on June 16, 2026, in my speech before Aiken County Council, part of which is as follows:

By way of reminder:
— The Aiken County Organizational Chart (C) shows Aiken County Voters at the top, over entities including Aiken County Council;
— and – From The Declaration of Independence (D), we read that to secure our Creator-endowed, unalienable rights, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Per the definition that I gave in my February 4, 2025, speech (E), Public Hearings have two purposes:
1. Citizens, taxpayers, and voters can express their opinions about the ordinance; and
2. Aiken County Council needs to answer questions from their constituents.

Per my March 4, 2025, speech (F), the Freedom of Information Act within the South Carolina Code of Laws completely allows answering constituent questions in public.

Note that I give the phrase “Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreement” and similar such phrases the acronym F-I-L-O-T, which I pronounce “FILOT”.

On behalf of all Aiken County Voters (your bosses), I am requiring you to answer all of my questions tonight before you vote on this ordinance.

Let’s read these questions…

Aiken County Council
1. Has every member of County Council read and understood ALL of the documentation regarding this ordinance in the CC Docs document that accompanies this reading?
2. Will you as a member of County Council vow never to vote in favor of this ordinance — that is, “rubber stamp” it — merely because:
— a. you have always — in the past — trusted the entities who brought it before you;
— b. you don’t want to mar your record of supporting economic development; and/or
— c. your habit has been to vote the same way someone else on Council votes?

Personnel
3. As it concerns this ordinance, will Aiken County Government provide complete lists of:
— a. the names of any and all persons — by his/her level of government — who has received advice or input; and
— b. the names of all persons — together with their titles and organization names — from whom the advice and input has come?

Company
4. What is a brief overview of this company’s history?
5. Is this company domestic-owned or foreign-owned?
6. What are all of the products/services that this company plans to manufacture/provide at this new or expanded location?
7. How will offering the company this FILOT Agreement affect or influence the Creator-endowed and unalienable rights of Aiken County Voters?

Fee In Lieu of Tax (FILOT) Agreement
8. Can you explain both the pros and the cons of offering a FILOT Agreement to this company at this time?
9. What is the projected “investment” that this company plans to make as a result of this FILOT Agreement?
10. In years, what is the length of this FILOT Agreement?
11. In dollars, what amount of taxes will this company not have to pay?
12. How will Aiken County compensate for this lost tax revenue?

Resources
13. What resources will this company require on a monthly basis, including, but not limited to:
— a. electricity, 
— b. water, and 
— c. sewage treatment?
14. Does Aiken County have the resources to meet the needs of existing residents and businesses — as well as this new company/location?
15. Has a traffic study been done that shows the increase in traffic by types of vehicles?
16. What commitments has the company made for infrastructure maintenance and improvements?

Environment
17. Once operational, what are the anticipated impacts of this new/expanded location, including, but not limited to:
— a. emissions into the air;
— b. effluents into the water;
— c. waste solids that will be produced; and
— d. odors that can be detected by the human nose?
18. How often will testing of water and air be done to assure Aiken County residents that there is no contamination?

Jobs
19. Once construction is completed, how many new employees will the company employ at this new or expanded location?
20. Will these new employees come primarily from within Aiken County?
21. How many of these jobs will be categorized as:
— a. skilled labor; and
— b. unskilled labor?
22. At start-up, what wages — or ranges of wages — will the company pay to:
— a. skilled labor; and
— b. unskilled labor?

I have done the homework for you by asking fundamental questions, so that when they are answered, you will not be voting blind on this ordinance. 

Your constituents deserve answers to all of my questions.

To make answering these questions easy, I have printed and had distributed enough written copies of this speech for each of you, a company representative, and the County Administrator.

Thank you for answering all of my questions before you vote.

To-date, every time I have asked questions like this during a Public Hearing, they have not been fully answered.

In fact, it has been my experience that Council members never engage at all with members of the audience regarding questions about FILOT Agreements during Public Hearings.

Does Council Ever Talk About FILOT Agreements in Public?

Up to June 2023, I confess that I:

  • Had never attended any of the Council’s Committee meetings; and
  • Was naively under the impression that all Council members totally understood all of the details associated with every agreement upon which they voted.

Could it have been the case that Aiken County Council members were talking about FILOTs during Committee meetings?

I began to attend a number of Council’s Committee meetings — Administrative, Development, and Judicial and Public Safety Committees — particularly when something on the agenda caught my attention.

I have observed that these Committee meetings are generally held within either 15- or 30-minute time frames.

One wonders how a legally binding agreement — like a FILOT that spans up to 4 decades — can adequately be discussed during a 15- or 30-minute meeting.

I credit Don Moniak for sharing with me that ordinances are not discussed during Aiken County Council’s Committee meetings!

He further shared with me that the Aiken City Council does discuss potential ordinances during their Work Sessions; i.e. the proposed hospitality tax increase and the proposed transfer of the Shaw Creek Preserve to the South Carolina Forestry Commission.

So, I went digging for information on Aiken County Council’s most recent previous FILOT Ordinance — regarding “Project Synthesis” — to see if any Committee or Work Session covered this topic and here’s what I found (from oldest to newest):

May 19, 2026:
Development Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Aiken County Council Work Session (no mention)
Aiken County Council Agenda (Introduction of Ordinances for First Reading, #2, Project Synthesis)

June 2, 2026:
Judicial and Public Safety Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Aiken County Council Work Session (no mention)
Aiken County Council Agenda (Old Business, #3, Second Reading, Project Synthesis Company Named)

June 16, 2026:
Development Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Aiken County Council Work Session (no mention)
Aiken County Council Agenda (Public Hearing, #1, and Old Business, #2, Third Reading, Project Synthesis Company Named)

So, it appears that Aiken County Council never discussed any details regarding Project Synthesis during any Committee meeting or any Work Session.

And I know that they didn’t talk about this FILOT ordinance during Aiken County Council’s meeting!

This seems to be a repeated pattern: 

Aiken County Council members almost always have zero discussion about FILOT ordinances in public.

Why?

At the top of every Aiken County Council Agenda, we read: “Council Administrator Form of Government”.

The question follows then: If the Aiken County Council leads the charge on government, why don’t Aiken County Council members lead — or at least respond — with transparency and openness regarding FILOT ordinances during Public Hearings?

To me, this practice of being mute during Public Hearings on FILOTs is not acceptable; however, it is going to take more than just one Aiken County Voter to change things.

Citizen Awareness and Involvement

Over the years, I have seen these examples of citizens who have shown up en masse at Aiken County Council meetings and stood up for their Creator-endowed and unalienable rights in one way, shape, or form:

  • 2024.04.16: “Standing-room-only” sized crowd showed up at the Aiken County Council meeting over the House of Raeford Farms, Inc. (“Project Sunny” or chicken slaughterhouse) issue
  • 2026.04.23: A huge crowd showed up to support the Comprehensive Plan.
  • 2026.06.19: Aiken County residents were persistent in voicing their concerns about the planned construction of a 115-kilovolt transmission line.

I would like to see many more of Aiken County’s citizens, taxpayers, and voters regularly attend Aiken County Council’s meetings and stand up for their Creator-endowed and unalienable rights on issues, including Public Hearings on Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements.

Call to Action

During my January 16, 2024, speech to Aiken County Council, I said:

Some time back, I was informed of the difference between “transparency” and “openness,” which I want to describe for you:

— “Transparency” is when someone shows you an envelope;
— “Openness” is when someone tells you what’s in the envelope.

In my opinion, Aiken County Council and Aiken County Government need to do a much better job of demonstrating transparency and openness during Public Hearings on Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements.

Wouldn’t you agree that if a FILOT is all that it needs to be, it should hold up well under scrutiny?

Here is what I would personally like to see happen regarding Aiken County Council’s handling of FILOT ordinances:

  1. All FILOT Public Hearings are held during the Second Reading, not the Third Reading, of the ordinance;
  2. Every Council member is required to read ALL of the documentation regarding every FILOT ordinance;
  3. Every Council member is required to understand ALL FILOT documentation;
  4. Every Council member is able to answer the fundamental questions that I — and others from within Aiken County — have raised regarding a FILOT ordinance; and
  5. Before a FILOT ordinance is passed on Third Reading, all answers from the pubic are answered during the Public Hearing.

I would not be opposed to the Council Chairman calling upon either the County Administrator or County Attorney to answer FILOT ordinance questions, as long as they are all answered.

In my opinion, if the questions cannot be answered about a FILOT ordinance, it should not be passed. Period.

Opportunity to Act

Researching SCPublicNotices.com, one sees that on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, Aiken County Council will be holding a Public Hearing described as:


“There will be public hearing at the regular meeting of County Council on Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 6:00 pm, in the County Council Chambers, Third Floor, Aiken County Government Center, 1930 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 concerning the following matter: … 3. Ordinance Authorizing an Amendment of That Certain Fee In Lieu of Ad Valorem Taxes Agreement by And Between Aiken County, South Carolina and Project NEXGEN, Relating to, Without Limitation, The Extension Of The Investment Period Under The Agreement; And Providing For Other Related Matters.”

The FILOT ordinance for “Project NEXGEN” was introduced under First Reading on July 21, 2026 and was not listed on the agenda for either of the Special Called Meetings on July 28 or August 4.

Even if this Public Hearing will be held during the Second Reading, I do not see a company name associated with “Project NEXGEN” online and won’t be able to see Aiken County Council’s Agenda for August 18, 2026, until it is published for the public on Monday, August 17.

If you believe that greater transparency and openness are needed during Aiken County Council’s Public Hearings on FILOT ordinances, please do 2 things:

_____________________

Aiken County Government, In the Courts, June 2026, Stormwater and Flooding

Stormwater Lawsuits

4 Comments

by Don Moniak
June 22, 2026.

In an area that annually averages nearly four feet of rain, with some years exceeding five feet, stormwater management is a constant challenge. Our predominantly sandy soils also create greater risks of sedimentation damage to down-gradient property owners and to our public waterways.

Aiken County has an agreement in place with the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (DES, formerly DHEC) to manage stormwater runoff; and has an Ordinance dealing strictly with stormwater. In short, the County regulates stormwater management while DES oversees the County.

In regard to its stormwater management practices, Aiken County was sued twice in 2025 for allegedly failing to protect property owners.

The first suit against the County was filed in March 2025, and involves an equestrian development known as Park Place Polo. The other lawsuit, filed in August 2025, involves a new golfing establishment, the 21 Golf Club.

In both suits, the Plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ actions have negatively impacted their properties and created stormwater runoff and sedimentation events that rise to the level of a trespass and loss of property values. Aiken County’s actions during the permitting process, or lack thereof, are alleged to have facilitated the damages.

The Cedar Creek Road/Park Place Polo Lawsuit

The Swartz and Gamm vs Aiken County, Park Place Polo, and the South Carolina Department of Transportation lawsuit involves chronic flooding on Cedar Creek Road, and the resultant sedimentation onto private property; including wetlands. Cedar Creek Road is a County-owned dirt road situated off Coleman Bridge Road; north of Highway 302. (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Cedar Creek Road and Park Place Polo properties.


The Cedar Creek Road stormwater problems have been exposed by WRDW News of Augusta, which has featured stories such as Like Clockwork: Cedar Creek Road Washes Out Again, Why Flooding Still Plagues Aiken County Residents on Rural Road, and Heavy Flooding Leaves Local Family Looking for Answers.

The complaint alleges that since 2022 storm water runoff (Figure 2) from Park Place Polo’s property developments have damaged the private property of two long-time residents—as well as causing the road itself to chronically washout. Sediments have smothered floodplains and flowed into a private pond along Cedar Creek.

Figure 2: Typical flooding from stormwater on Cedar Creek Road. (Photo by Duane Gamm).

The County permitted the large equestrian development without requiring any stormwater retention structures that would slow the streams of water during major rain events and thus protect downhill/downstream parties—including Cedar Creek and its associated wetlands, which are waters of the state.

As predictable, to date all defendants deny any wrongdoing.

However, SC DOT’s answer included the following statement that impugned the County and Park Place Polo:

“The Defendant SCDOT is informed and believes the inundation of storm water during rain events will continue without Aiken County modifying its permit for development or enforcing the permit Aiken County issued, and the Defendant SCDOT joins in the Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief to abate the continued inundation of storm water during rain events from which there is no adequate remedy at law for the Plaintiffs or the Defendant, SCDOT.”

SC DOT also filed a Motion for Joinder (to also be named as a Plaintiff) that stated drainage “had been fully adequate up until the development in the area above the Plaintiffs’ property whereupon the Plaintiffs’ property and the state highway, Coleman Bridge Road, have become inundated by storm water during rain events.” (The Motion was denied).

As for Aiken County’s role, in early 2023 County officials gave strong hints as to its complicity in this problem—which has cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, if not more than a hundred thousand, to address; and for which there is no foreseeable resolution of the problem.

The Aiken County Council’s February 21, 2023 public meeting featured a fifteen-minute discussion on the matter after Cedar Creek Road resident Duane Gamm brought the issue to Council’s attention.

The dialogue that evening, which occurred from the four minute to twenty-one minute mark in this audio, included the following statements:

Duane Gamm: “We have had at least seven events where the road is being washed out. Every  time it washes out they run the runoff onto my property. We have one inch of rain and the county comes out and spends $5,000 to fix the road.” 

“There is 80 acres that they have developed where the runoff comes down . Cedar Creek Road is actually a ridge. 80 acres up there does not have a cross drainage.“  (Figure 2)

“The wetlands are on my property and the county has cut a drain that goes right into it.” 

Councilman Kelly Mobley: “Are DHEC and the Corps aware of the wetlands issue we have?….Is there a solution that does not involve paving? If this happened because of a development that we allowed to happen, assuming this is a new polo field area….Whose responsibility is this? What is the challenge?” 

Duane Gamm: “They have to keep the runoff at or below the levels before they developed it.” 

Councilman Mobley: “DId the developer dump water from the new polo field onto Cedar Creek ? Is there stormwater being dumped on that road that was not being dumped there before?”

Councilman Mike Kellems: “When we built a fire department station on an acre and a half, we had to build a retention pond. Can staff answer why this wasn’t required here?” 

Councilman Mobley: “Mr. Killian, what kind of recourse do we have after the fact if in fact we find we did not adequately prepare? Is there remedial action we can take with the polo folks.” 

Assistant County Administrator Brian Sanders: “We tried to get the polo people to do something more.” 

Since this exchange, the road has continued to wash out after every major rainfall event; generally an inch or more within one day. Everytime it washes out, the County sends a grader to repair the damage and make the road passable again.

The solution proposed by the County is paving. But Cedar Creek Road is not on the list of paving projects to be funded by Capital Project Sales Tax dollars; nor is it on the list of County roads to be paved with state funding.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit slogs through the courts. According to a recent Consent Order, there will be no trial until at least after November 1, 2026, to allow for both more discovery time and an opportunity to “convene a meaningful mediation conference.

The 21 Golf Lawsuit

21 Golf is a new golf club being constructed on a 474-acre parcel northwest of Jackson, near Drag Strip Road.

According to the lawsuit, water is being discharged from a newly constructed pond onto the Plaintiff’s property.

The suit alleges that Aiken County is responsible for permitting and enforcing the stormwater management regulations applicable to 21 Golf Club, but has “failed to adequately investigate complaints about the improper discharge and failed to enforce stormwater regulations to protect the Plaintiff’s property.”

In its response, the County denied all culpability.

In its answer, 21 Golf denied the allegations but also named a Third Party, its grading contractor Morton Civil Services, writing that the company “expressly and/or implied warranted to 21 Golf that all work performed by them would be performed in a careful, diligent, and workmanlike manner and that any materials and/or services designed, supplied, or sold by them for use on the project would be merchantable and fit for their intended or specific purpose. To the extent the Plaintiffs’ allegations are true, the Third-Party Defendant breached their implied and/or express warranties of merchantability, workmanlike service, and/or fitness for a particular or intended purpose in the construction of the project.”

In other words, while admitting no liability, 21 Golf has taken the preemptive action to pass legal costs onto its contractor in the case of an award to Plaintiffs.

The case is currently in the discovery phase.

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

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

4 Comments

by Vicki Simons
June 1, 2026

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

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

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

The Need

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

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

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

1. Enhance government transparency and accountability;

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

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

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

4. Increase civic engagement and voter awareness;

5. Create a permanent record of government decisions;

6. Prove that county government has nothing to hide;

7. Attract businesses and investors by showcasing government transparency;

8. Demonstrate a commitment to innovation and technological advancement;

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

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

11. Help educate students on government processes;

12. Increase general political awareness in the community;

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

14. Many other reasons not listed here.

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

  • These South Carolina cities are already doing so:

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

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

Times When Livestreaming Meetings Would Have Been Helpful

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Calls to Livestream Aiken County Meetings

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

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

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

How Much Money is Really Required?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not received an answer to my request.

Aiken County Voters Must Speak Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urgent Call to Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aiken County Government, Wastewater

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

2 Comments

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

by Don Moniak
March 23. 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

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

Figure 3.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Solution: Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

During the chicken plant debate, Mobley actually said this;

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

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

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

Aiken County Government, Freedom of Information, July 2025

Details Matter Regarding Protecting Freedom of Speech

1 Comment

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

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

by Don Moniak
July 22, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Amendments, or Lack Thereof

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

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

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

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

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

Marginalizing Citizen Input

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

No Amendment to Improve Timely Information Access

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

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

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

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

The Vote

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

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

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

What is Next?

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