Category Archives: Aiken County Government

Aiken County Council (Considers) Going Live


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 that Council was livestreaming its next meeting 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.)

(Update: July 19, 2025: County Council still refuses to livestream its meetings, and earlier this year voted 6-2 to not fund such an effort. Council members Mike Kellems and Landon Ball voted to fund livestreaming, whereas Chairman Gary Bunker and Council members Danny Feagin, Sandy Haskell, Phil Napier, Andrew Siders, and P.K. Hightower voted to not fund livestreaming.)

At 1,070 square miles, Aiken County is the fourth largest county by land area in South Carolina. County officials like to boast that it has a (slightly) larger land area in the State of Rhode Island. Despite its size, neither Aiken County Council nor Aiken County Planning Commission public meetings can be viewed remotely (1). The minimalist, incomplete, and often inaccurate, nature of County Council meeting minutes further hampers public knowledge of Council proceedings.

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’s Competitive Rowing Investments

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.”

This is a relatively small event. By comparison, the 2023 U.S. Rowing Youth National Championships held in Sarasota, Florida, drew 835 entries from 225 clubs; the 2022 Head of the Hooch in Chattanooga, TN, drew 2,037 entries from 171 clubs.

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

DevelopmentBid Award Contractor Award Year
Finishing Line Driveway $33,420J.D. 2018
Finishing Line Tower*$1,151,580J.E. Stewart (Aiken) 2019
Course Anchors$77,650J.D. Gaskins (Aiken) 2020
Spectator Dock**$398,250Rowing America (Connecticut2023
Starting Docks**$225,720Rowing America (CT) 2023
Catamaran DocksCancelled
Total Costs***$1,886,620
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).



$1.1 Million Worth of Water Bills.

Aiken County Council recently approved spending more than a million dollars to address urgent wastewater and stormwater problems. The funds involve replacing “cheaper” equipment at the County’s wastewater plant, and repairing and cleaning a faulty, County-owned stormwater pond. Continued heavy development is expected to stress the wastewater treatment plant, and stormwater management programs.

by Don Moniak
February 29, 2024

On Tuesday, February 20th, Aiken County Council held its fourth set of public meetings this calendar year.

The sessions began at 5 p.m with the three-person Development Committee convening to discuss and approve a series of resolutions for the “consent agenda.” (1) Two of the resolutions involved emergency expenditures to resolve serious problems with wastewater treatment and stormwater runoff. Three other resolutions were related to stormwater management, and one additional resolution pertained to the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant.

Cheap is Expensive

The first order of the Development Committee’s business was a resolution to spend $860,708 to purchase essential equipment for Aiken County’s Horse Creek Wastewater Plant. Due to recent sewage pump failures, the County is spending upwards of $200,000 per month for rental pumps and associated diesel costs. (see Meeting documents, pages 20-25).

The plant was designed and constructed in 1970’s, in the wake of the passage of the Federal Clean Water Act, and went online in 1979. Among its many accomplishments since then, it was credited with improving Horse Creek water quality enough to allow for fish populations to recover in what was a biologically sterile Langley Pond (2). (However, fish consumption advisories still remain in place.)

The plant traditionally used Patterson brand pumps in plant operations. This brand of pumps reportedly lasted more than three decades, with minimal problems. After the County switched to what County Administrator Brian Sanders termed a “cheaper grade of pump,” serious issues began within several years.

This time, the County wisely opted to skip the bidding process and go with a sole-source contract for higher quality, Patterson sewage pumps and replacement pump bowl assemblies.

The replacement process will take six months; the pumps themselves take four months to build. Until then, the County will keep spending hundreds of thousands on a bandaid solution—a case study in the oftentimes high costs of low cost.

The good news for the plant is that Council also approved a resolution to accept a $5 million grant for plant upgrades from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; illustrating again that in terms of outside financial aid and economic support, the federal government remains Aiken County’s best friend.

Figure 1. An example of Patterson Axial Flow Wastewater Pump. Aiken County has ordered a Patterson Axial Flow Pump Model
24×30 SAFV at a cost of $360,032 with a rating of 18,883 gallons per minute at 22.5 feet, which is smaller model than the one shown above. Fuller details of Patterson Pumps are available in this brochure.


Bad Pond

The second most expensive resolution passed during the meeting involved $247,000 (3) for emergency repairs and cleanup of a 2.6 acre stormwater pond property (Pages 31-36).

Aiken County owns 73 stormwater ponds, and most involve residential subdivisions. One of these ponds that is designed to control stormwater runoff from Gregs Mill at Horse Creek (Figure 2) is close to failure. The pond was purchased from Beazley Development in 2009 by Aiken County for $10; a “deed of dedication” that is one of many examples of a developer’s private liability being assumed by county taxpayers. (4)

The County’s current stormwater pond maintenance and repair contractor, Brown’s Grounds of North Augusta, described the problem, in part, as follows:

The outfall pipe is sticking about 8 feet straight out of the dam slope suspended in the air due to severe erosion that has eaten a hole roughly 18 feet deep and 30 feet wide around this area. The end of the pipe is eroded and water is going through the pipe instead of the end of the pipe. A new Flare needs to be attached to help control the water flow. The erosion has caused a 20 foot section of the fence to be suspended in the air with a trough about 8 feet deep running under the fence into the adjacent property. The silt from all of this erosion has been pushed through the woods causing a trench about 4 feet wide and 100 feet long.

The first estimate for repairs and cleanup, made on January 4, 2024, was $110,020. With the situation worsening after heavy rains, further threatening the Sunset Memorial Gardens cemetery below the pond, the estimate for the emergency work has rose to $247,000.

Figure 2. County-owned pond (center) near junction of Sudlow Lake Road and U.S. Highway 1. Cemetery is left, to the SW.


Pond Inspections.

The question arises: If five to ten ponds were to be damaged or fail during a major storm event—say 10 or more inches in 24-48 hours—how many millions of dollars would County taxpayers be on the hook for repair costs?

County officials are proposing a $2 million line item for unspecified “drainage projects” in the upcoming Capital Project Sales Tax referendum. During a recent discussion of this tax and spend proposal, County Administrator Brian Sanders stated that, “we know drainage issues are going to come up,” citing “too much development.”(5)

Monitoring and inspection of the ponds could help prevent future failures. Following the $247,000 stormwater pond repair resolution, Council approved another resolution to spend a mere $4,500 for Brown’s Grounds to inspect 30 county-owned ponds; 24 of which control stormwater from residential subdivisions.

Stormwater Improvements”

Prior to the $247,000 pond repair and cleanup resolution, the Committee also approved a seemingly unrelated matter: acceptance of a “Deed of Dedication for an extension of Hartshorn Circle (C-3013), and Certain Stormwater Improvements in the Providence, Phase C2 Subdivision” of Trolley Run Station.(Figure 3)

While there were no financial costs yet associated with this resolution, it reflects why “too much development” will inevitably lead to more stormwater problems.

“Stormwater Improvements” is a bureaucratic misnomer; more proper terms for future deeds of dedication resolutions should be “stormwater controls” or “stormwater mitigation” projects.

Developments involving clearcutting of forestlands and stripping all the ground cover creates the necessity for stormwater control. There is rarely a need for “improvements” on undeveloped forestlands—the optimal watershed protection land condition.

Figure 3. Area of recent deed of dedication in Trolley Run Station; 2014 (bottom) vs. 2023 (top). The forested area shown in 2014 required no “stormwater improvements.” Note how the older portion of the massive subdivision (lower left) involved retention of a forested buffer.


Footnotes

(1) Committee meetings consist of three council members addressing, sometimes discussing, and then voting on resolutions that do not, by County law, require public hearings.

Instead, the resolutions are compiled into a “consent agenda” that Council votes upon as a whole during the regular meeting. The list of resolutions can include items as disparate as multimillion dollar property purchases, naming of private roads for the 911 system, ordering expensive equipment to meet immediate needs, and approving contract change orders. There is rarely a nay vote during deliberations.

Sixteen items were on the February 20, 2024 consent agenda.

“Discussion” is too strong a word to use for the February 20th meeting. The Development Committee spent 15 minutes reviewing 10 resolutions. There were no questions asked regarding the wastewater plant resolution, and few comments or questions regarding stormwater management issues.

(2) Conditions in Langley Pond following the beginning of Horse Creek Wastewater Plant operations were summed up in the abstract to the 1986 DHEC publication A Water Quality Assessment of Langley Pond; Aiken County, South Carolina. An Analysis of Sediment and Fish Tissue Data. (by Douglas Darr).


(3) Since Aiken County collects a $10 stormwater fee come property tax time, the expenditure amounts to 24,700 individual stormwater fee payments.

(4) Drainage easements are another County expense resulting from heavy development. Council also approved another resolution pertaining to stormwater control (Pages 41-45); an $83,000 purchase of a 1.65 acre drainage easement from Clifton Place Partner’s LLC—-one of several firms involved in new residential development along the Whiskey Road-Powderhouse Road connector project.

The easement purchase on undeveloped land between Powderhouse and Whiskey Roads was justified as part of the Whiskey Road Corridor Drainage Project, which is being funded in part from CPST funds approved in 2018.

(5) Statement made on Wednesday, February 28, 2024 during the Capital Project Sales Tax Study Committee meeting. Three Council members compose the committee reviewing the County’s proposed tax and spend proposals.

Other stories regarding water quality water use, stormwater, and wastewaster issues:

Is Google Coming to Aiken County?

The Woodside Plantation Ravine on Hollow Creek.

The Water Guzzler Ordinance

Water Welfare for Industry on Tap for City Council

Proposed Southside Development Raising Concerns About Flooding.

The New Downtown County Judicial Complex Takes Shape.

by Don Moniak

January 26, 2024

Aiken County’s downtown judicial center is being modernized and growing beyond the historic courthouse at Chesterfield Street and Park Avenue.The decision to expand downtown, instead of building anew on the edge of town, will result in substantial taxpayer savings, preserve the traditional use of three historic buildings, and maintain downtown’s private legal culture.

Aiken County Council approved the purchase of the City of Aiken’s former Municipal Building at 214 Park Avenue, SW, for use as the County Solicitor’s Office in December 2023; Aiken City Council gave final sale approval on January 22, 2024.

Aiken County is also close to finalizing the free acquisition of the Charles E. Simons Jr. Federal Courthouse, at 223 Park Avenue SW, from the federal government.

These two property transfers, along with pending interior upgrades to the County Courthouse, will keep the County’s judicial system centered in downtown Aiken.

The situation is a win-win for Aiken County and its County Seat, the City of Aiken. The former will modernize its downtown judicial infrastructure in a cost-effective means that saves taxpayers tens of millions of dollars; while preserving the historical integrity of Park Avenue from Laurens to Chesterfield Streets.

The County Seat of Aiken retains the economic benefits derived from hosting the essential business of the justice system. Attorneys and legal staff in the numerous law offices within a several hundred feet of the County Courthouse can still walk to conduct their business; and their clients will continue to visit the downtown offices.

Supply, Demand, and the County’s Judicial Complex.

As Aiken County’s population grows, the demands of adhering to the State of South Carolina’s Criminal and Civil Codes only intensify. The county judicial complex, centered in downtown Aiken, has experienced a heavy burden from this growth for more than a decade. 
(In 2023, Aiken County Council also approved a $13.8 million expansion of the County jail on Wire Road to alleviate chronic overcrowding, again reflecting the county’s growth).

The idea for an entirely new complex on County-owned property adjacent to the looming County Administrative Offices on University Avenue also germinated more than a decade ago. The options were to build anew at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, or to reorganize an existing supply of government facilities at a much lower cost.

Aiken County began negotiating more than two years ago with the City of Aiken to purchase the historic Aiken Municipal Building at 214 Park Avenue, NW. Concurrently, the County was negotiating with the Federal Government to obtain the seldom-used, historic Charles E. Simons Jr. Federal Courthouse on Park Avenue, across the street from the former Municipal Building.

As reported in Why is the City of Aiken Toying with 113 Downtown Jobs, the County’s goal was to seek the least expensive alternative to alleviating the overcrowding at the historic County Courthouse at Park Avenue and Chesterfield Street.

Obtaining the Municipal Building would also consolidate the County Solicitor’s offices from three locations to one central location, thus improving the efficiencies of that department. Obtaining the Federal Courthouse would provide more space for civil and/or criminal trials, and provide interim space to upgrade the existing courthouse interior.

Figure 1: Plat showing the Municipal Building (in yellow) being sold to Aiken County.


Aiken County Council Approves Purchase of Former City Hall

As told in 113 Jobs , the negotiations between city and county were disrupted by a sudden decision in April 2022 to move the proposed Project Pascalis conferenced center from Newberry Street to the Municipal Building. Negotiations ensued between the owners of Newberry Hall and the City of Aiken for the future ownership and operational structure of such a conference center. 

As reported in Project Pascalis Conference Center Costs, that process cost the City upwards of $100,000 dollars, delayed the County’s judicial system modernization, and created considerable uncertainty for the latter process. The City’s costs included reimbursing Newberry Hall’s legal counsel $36,779.93; a luxury not afforded to other Project Pascalis property tenants who endured heavy pressure in 2022 to sign questionable, generic relocation agreements that were as uniform for a dry cleaner and restauranteur they were for real estate brokers and insurance agents. 

Thus, Project Pascalis not only was a plan to demolish half a block of downtown Aiken, it also could have resulted in the abandonment of the County’s judicial presence, an uncertain future for the historic County and Federal courthouses, and a debt load in the tens of millions of dollars for County taxpayers.

The end of Project Pascalis meant the full resumption of efforts to repurpose the by-now vacant, New Deal-funded Municipal Building from City administrative use to County administrative use. At the State of the City address in January 2023, Mayor Rick Osbon made a strong recommitment to this path.

On December 12, 2023, the first half of the County’s Solicitor’s Office plans became official when County Council approved the purchase of the Municipal Building for $2.4 million—which was $200,000 less than the appraised value. The purchase excludes the patio area of the Municipal Building and the “Brinkley Building” portion. (Figure 1). Both will be retained by the City; the former for use in The Alley events and the latter to be sold or used for a yet-to-be defined future municipal use; such as a well-needed public restrooms for Alley events.

County Council’s decision was anti-climactic. A short discussion occurred during a Judicial and Public Safety Committee Meeting, and the $2.4 million sale approval occurred during approval of Council’s larger “consent agenda;” alongside such notable acts as the naming of private roads.

The second half of the process involved Aiken City Council approving the sale of the building. Council unanimously and quietly approved the sale during both public hearings this month. There were no discussions between Council members, and only one citizen comment endorsing the plan.

Once the sale is authorized and the deed transfer is executed, the Solicitor’s Office can move in, as the well-maintained building will require almost no upgrades. No Design Review Board (DRB) approval is necessary, as there will be no facade changes.

The move serves to consolidate the County’s Solicitor’s Offices, which are presently spread across three buildings, into one facility directly across the street from the Federal Courthouse and only two blocks from the County Courthouse. This consolidation not only preserves the building in its current state, but also its traditional governmental use for which federal New Deal dollars were dedicated in the 1930’s.

Figure 2: Federal Courthouse in 1935 and 2020

The Charles E. Simons Federal Courthouse Freebie

According to Aiken County Council Chair Gary Bunker, the transfer of New Deal-funded Charles E. Simon Federal Courthouse (Figure 2) is close to fruition and inevitable. There is no purchase price because the federal government is essentially gifting the historic building to the County and its citizens.

This Aiken County Assessor’s office currently appraises the market value of the half-acre property at $687,000, but provides no estimated value for the ~5,420 building square foot itself. 

The building was added to the National Historic Register in 2003. The 2002 nomination form included a five-page description and statement of significance.

In addition to the historic structure continuing to grace Park Avenue, interior preservation is mandated. Most prominent in the main courtroom is the famous New Deal-era mural titled “Justice as Protector and Avenger.” (Figure 3)

According to the statement of significance, a mural created by artist Stefan Hirsch is located behind the judge’s bench and “depicts a lady justice as a simply clothed figure in red, white, and blue, alternately protecting the oppressed while prosecuting the evil elements in society.”

The mural was so controversial in the Jim Crow south that then presiding Judge Frank K. Myers had it covered with drapes, stating in part, that:

You are advised that this piece of work is so offensive to me that, at my own expense, I had it covered as soon as possible after the opening of court, and that, as long as I preside in the Aiken court, it will not be displayed.”

To add context to this era, the mural was added only twelve years after the triple lynching of Lowman siblings Damon, Bertha and Clarence, all three of whom were expected to be acquitted of the crimes for which they’d been charged. However, the night before the trial, they were forcibly removed from the Aiken Jail on Chesterfield Street behind the Aiken County Courthouse. Ongoing efforts to erect a historic marker commemorating that tragic injustice have failed to gain traction.

Figure 3: “Lady Justice” mural.


While the City of Aiken has struggled to address the condition of the Richland Avenue side of the central downtown block, Aiken County’s sometimes infamous frugality will serve to preserve three of the most significant historical structures in downtown Aiken and add to the downtown’s historic role of hosting the County’s judicial complex.

Adding the two buildings also means that the County will own six historic structures in the downtown area, joining the County Courthouse, the newly renovated County Library on the former Aiken Institute, and what is now the County Museum. The sixth building is the increasingly blighted Old Hospital and County Administration Building on Richland Avenue—which the County and City have collectively allowed to fall into a worsening state of disrepair that would not be tolerated if it was privately owned.

Still, the City of Aiken has, in this instance, lived up to its role as County Seat, and helped to save County taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and avoid what certainly would have been a highly controversial effort to move the judicial complex to the edge of town.

Figure 4: The future judicial complex (left) and the 37-acre County owned parcel (right, within red outline) where a new judicial center was an option. The decade-old County Administrative Building (often jokingly referred to as the “Taj Mahal) is in the lower right.

More Than Pennies: The 2024 Confluence of One-Percent Sales Tax Referendums.

How will Aiken County voters respond in 2024 to two separate one-percent sales tax referendums on the same ballot?

by Don Moniak
October 31, 2023

|On October 7, 2023, a letter was sent to more than thirty elected officials across the county—-Aiken and North Augusta City Councils, Aiken County Council, the state legislative delegation, and the School Board—asking seven questions about Aiken County one-percent Capital Project Sales Tax and the Aiken County School District’s one-percent Education Capital Improvement sales tax for school construction projects.

That letter and responses to date can be found in A LETTER TO AIKEN COUNTY’S ELECTED OFFICIALS REGARDING ONE-PERCENT SALES TAXES, a permanent page that will be updated as elected officials provide more responses, either directly or indirectly.

This background article is the first in an intermittent series that will address sales tax issues and the November 2024 referendums. The topics will include past accomplishments, luxury projects vs necessities, the various public debates, and the compilation of projects for the 2024 referendums. Any letters to the editor or other offerings are appreciated.

One-Percent Sales Tax Background

In November of 2024, Aiken County voters will encounter two individual one-percent sales tax referendums on their general election ballot:

1. The Capital Project Sales Tax (CPST)—used to fund capital projects and vehicle and major equipment purchases across the County (1) and its cities and towns.
2. The Aiken County School District Education Capital Improvement sales tax (School tax)—used to to fund new school construction and renovations of existing schools.

These two taxes are already in place, but due to expire. The 2024 general election will be the first time voter referendums on both taxes will be on the same ballot; and the first time since 2004 that a referendum is on a Presidential ballot.

One-Percent, One-Cent, or A Penny?

Both local sales taxes involve extracting revenue from consumers at a rate of one percent of all retail purchases, with the exception of unprepared foods. (2)

Both local sales taxes are incorrectly termed as a “penny tax,” or “one-cent tax,” by many government officials and sales tax advocates; and local media generally swallows and regurgitates these two sound bites without question.

But neither of these is a “penny tax” or “one-cent tax,” both are one-percent sales taxes. The system does not add a penny in taxes to each sale, it adds one cent of tax per dollar spent on retail products.

Purpose of Local One-Percent Sales Taxes.

Both of the proposed sales taxes can only be used for capital projects, school construction projects, new or renovated county facilities, purchase of new equipment and vehicles, paving of dirt roads, and any other qualifying project. The revenues cannot be used to fund everyday, essential government operations, hire new employees, or give pay raises to existing employees.

Advocates prefer this sales tax revenue approach as a means to avoid property tax increases, yet still provide funding for essential government infrastructure. The CPST was described in 2018 by County Council Chairman Gary Bunker as “very crucial for the future of Aiken County,” and in 2014 by County Administrator Clay Killian as “a godsend.”

In 2014, the Aiken County School District was not ashamed to publicize another advantage: that up to a third of the tax revenues derive from out-of-county residents shopping in Aiken County—even though these outsiders derive no benefits from their payments to the Aiken County School District except maybe a new locker room or two for visiting teams.

New Tax or Existing Tax?

In practical terms, the two referendums might be viewed as a renewal of existing CPST and School taxes.

But each of the five sales tax referendums that have been on Aiken County ballots since 2000 was technically a new tax for two reasons.

First, each Capital Project Sales Tax (CPST) and School sales tax contains a completely new and different set of projects for dedicated funding. The CPST referendum, for example, requires a new ordinance that must undergo three County Council readings and a public hearing. Second, each tax has an expiration date.

Aiken Standard, November 9, 2000. “LOST,” or Local Option Sales Tax, was later changed to CPST, Capital Projects Sales Tax. The name change better reflected the purpose of the tax, with a side benefit of avoiding headlines like LOST lost or LOST loses


History of Tax Referendum Results.

The School District’s first one-percent sales tax referendum was approved during the November, 2014 general election by a margin of 23,909 (59 percent) to 16,407 (41 percent).

The 2014 referendum was for a ten-year school construction program, with proceeds specifically dedicated to constructing the new Leavelle McCampbell Middle School in Graniteville, additions at Aiken High and North Augusta High to replace outdated buildings, plus the construction of Ridge Spring-Monetta elementary and high schools.(3)

In the past twenty-three years, four rounds of Aiken County Capital Project Sales Taxes referendums have been placed on county ballots, and three of four times the referendums have been approved by wide margins.

2000: CPST I : 23,895 (52%) to 22,065 (48%) (Originally called LOST, Local Area Sales Tax).
2004: CPST II: 32,460 (59.7%) to 21, 840 (40.3%)
2010: CPST III: 25,235 (55%) to 20,543 (45%) (closer vote than in 2004, was attributed in part to a Tea-Party surge).
2018: CPST IV: 36,727 (65 %) 19,183 (35%).

But 2024 will be the first year that Aiken County voters will be asked to voluntarily tax themselves at a 2 percent rate on all retail goods except unprepared food.

Aiken School District Superintendent King Lawrence presented the “Penny Sales Tax” plan to the Aiken County Legislative Delegation on August 22. It will be the first one-percent School District sales tax referendum in ten years.


Cumulative Effect of State and Local Sales Taxes

The culmination of the two one-percent sales taxes and the State’s
6 percent sales tax is an 8 percent sales tax in Aiken County for all retail sales except for unprepared foods.

But state law also allows local governments to charge “hospitality” sales taxes on prepared foods, and these sales taxes are also slyly marketed as one-cent or penny taxes. The City of Aiken enacted a one percent hospitality tax in 2015, and the City of North Augusta’s hospitality tax dings diners at a 2 percent rate—a rate that tends to undermine any “penny tax” marketing by tax-hungry officials.

The accumulation of these sales taxes when purchasing a restaurant meal, grocery store or convenience store hot bar food, or even freshly cut fruit, reaches a level of 9-10 percent depending upon the hospitality tax rate. This taxation rate, which is never referred to as a “dime tax,” means people dining out in Aiken and North Augusta involuntarily tithe the government two-thirds as much as the standard fifteen percent voluntary tips to waitresses, waiters, bartenders, and other servers.

What If?

As a result of years of dependency on voter-approved, one-percent sales taxes for capital projects, local government officials tend to take the revenues for granted. Planning is already ongoing to compile a list of projects for the referendum, but the very act of making that list can have the effect of assuming the next referendum will pass and allow both essential and pet pork projects to be funded. For example, at a recent Aiken City Council meeting, city officials informed citizens concerned about the condition of the Smith-Hazel Recreation Center’s gym floor that funding to correct its subpar condition will be in the next CPST.

But whether viewed as a renewal of existing tax or new taxes, under current referendum plans Aiken County voters will be asked for the first time to essentially tax themselves at a 2 percent rate. The fact that the referendums will be on the Presidential election ballot, which attracts considerably more voters, might add more uncertainty to the vote.

What will happen if voters say no to one or both of the referendums, and choose instead to force local governments to adapt to fewer funds? So far, there is little evidence that elected officials or their administrators have considered that possibility.

FOOTNOTES

(1) Aiken County Capital Sales Tax Projects from 2000 to present can be viewed from this county webpage.

(2) These county-wide sales taxes are authorized by South Carolina law, which permits counties and municipalities to choose to either exempt or allow sales taxes to be collected for unprepared food purchases. Unprepared foods are defined as any food product that can be purchased with USDA food stamp program.

Aiken County currently exempts unprepared foods, which is in line with the state sales tax system. Since 2007, the State of South Carolina has exempted unprepared foods from the state-wide sales tax through legislation that also reduced the state rate from seven percent to six percent.

(3) The 2014 APSD sales tax referendum was followed four years later by a bond referendum which passed by a margin of 59 to 41 percent. Unlike the sales tax referendum which was spread across the county, the bond was disproportionately benefitted North Augusta- with $ going to two new schools and two upgraded schools.