Category Archives: Aiken County Government

Sewage Capacity Makes the News

Aiken County’s evolving and confusing wastewater management program has become a hot topic during the ongoing debate regarding the House of Raeford’s (HOR) proposed chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant. The complex issue of wastewater system capacity was the key factor in Aiken County Council’s recent decision to allow its tax incentive package for HOR to “die” during its April 16, 2024, public meeting—even though Council did not share that information during the meeting.

Still, one end result has been a heightened public awareness that wastewater capacity at the County’s old Horse Creek Wastewater Plant is a key limiting factor for Aiken County economic growth. This dynamic situation will remain in the public eye while House of Raeford and its allies in state government reorganize efforts to locate the project somewhere in Aiken County, which is considered one of the company’s few viable geographic locations due to the nature of an industry that requires input (live chickens) to be close to slaughterhouses and processing plants.

(Update, May 3, 2024

by Don Moniak
April 24, 2024

As described in $1.1 Million Worth of Water Bills, the fifty-year-old Horse Creek Wastewater Plant is responsible for cleaning up, and keeping clean, Horse Creek—a stream that has endured scores of years of discharges from textile mills which rendered it, and Langley Pond, biologically sterile bodies of water until the late 1970’s to early 1980’s. This depends on one’s definition of ecological recovery, as a fish consumption advisory first issued in the 1980’s remains to this day (Figure 1).

Horse Creek Wastewater Plant, operated by the Aiken County Public Service Authority, is also responsible for processing sewage from multiple sewer and water districts across the Western portion of the county. Treated wastewater must meet State and Federal water quality standards before being released into the Savannah River.

Although the plant’s current permitted capacity is 20 million gallons per day (MGD), work towards future capacity of 26 MGD has been described by two contractors, Feyen Zylstra and GMC, who have completed an electrical upgrade and a plant design study, respectively.

Figure 1. DHEC fish consumption advisory, with a drained Langley Pond in the background. The advisory remains in place, but signs are routinely removed and destroyed by dissenting locals. (Photo by Laura Lance, 2015)

The County Council’s Controversial but Popular Non-Decision

At its regular public meeting one week ago on April 16th, Aiken County Council held the Second Reading of a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) Ordinance which would have authorized the County to negotiate and execute a tax incentive agreement for the proposed House of Raeford’s $185 million chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant near Interstate 20’s Exit 22 (see Pages 6-41 of Council Agenda packet for full details of the Ordinance).

The Second Reading was not a Public Hearing where public comment is accepted; that process was tentatively scheduled for May 7th if the Second Reading of the Ordinance was approved.

The proposal also involved a controversial City of Aiken ordinance to allow for deep sewer and water rate discounts for the company. Aiken City Council put that process on hold while the County reached a decision.

The Second Reading of the FILOT Ordinance led to what was essentially a non-decision. After a Motion to Table that would have returned the Ordinance to a future meeting agenda, no Council member made a Motion to Approve (or Disapprove) the Ordinance. As a result, the Ordinance, as written, “died” and cannot return for at least one year.

When Chairman Gary Bunker was asked what the failure of a Motion to proceed meant, he responded by saying:

It means it is dead as Marley’s ghost.”

(A video with low-quality audio of the Second Reading can be viewed here).

Chairman Bunker’s description of the lack of a Motion to move forward incited a roar of applause among the hundreds of people who packed County Chambers—as well as thousands of County residents who did not attend but heard the news within a few hours. (County Council still does not live stream its meetings or post the audio to its website).

The news was tempered somewhat by comments from Councilman Kelly Mobley, who was known to oppose the plant but had voted to table the Second Reading. Mr. Mobley explained that House of Raeford could still attempt to move forward without the proposed tax incentive.

Although not cited during the Second Reading, the primary reason for this rare, if not unprecedented, Council decision to allow a FILOT Ordinance to “die” was the issue of wastewater processing and permitting capacity, and the lack of sufficient allocation reserves for existing users. The wastewater issue was discussed during a Council Work Session that preceded the Public Meeting, but Council failed to share information from that Work Session during the meeting.

However, it was a topic of public discussion before the meeting; and in an April 16th letter (Figure 2) sent by Governor Henry McMaster to Chairman Bunker that was publicly released hours before the meeting. In his last minute intervention, McMaster urged Council to delay the process while his office sought financial help with the County’s wastewater capacity. Between McMaster’s controversial letter of interference in a local issue, and Councilman Mobley’s cautionary statements, any assumed finality of the project remains highly uncertain.

Figure 3: Governor McMaster letter. Note the cc to the Department of Agriculture, a strong backer of the project. (Click to enlarge)

Heightened Public Awareness of Wastewater Management

Still, in the wake County Council’s decision, or lack thereof, management of Aiken County’s highly variable sewage streams that are processed at the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant (Figure 3) is now prominent in the public eye.

Aiken County citizens are now more fully aware that the capacity and physical condition of the county-owned Horse Creek Wastewater Plant (HCWP), which has allowed industrial and residential growth, is also a limiting factor for future growth across much of Aiken County; particularly the western, more urban half of this relatively vast county. In fact, at least one rumor is even circulating that a moratorium on capacity is imminent (1).

In short, citizens learned that County Council’s determination was that almost all present and future HCWP permitted capacity is already currently allocated, and the City of Aiken in particular is very close to reaching its capacity; only 300 to 500 thousand gallons of reserve capacity is believed to exist at HCWP. However, there has been an ongoing third-party audit of the HCWP capacity issues for nearly a year that could alter the equation.

As a result, the issue remains complex and not fully understood. This is reflected by a summary of the situation* by Chairman Bunker, who has a deep knowledge of the issues surrounding HCWP. In response to questions posed via email (2) on April 17th, he wrote that:

Capacity is the total amount that the (wastewater) plant can process (20 millions gallons per day (MPD) while usage is what the plant normally processes in actuality (~12M gpd).

Aiken County is the wholesaler for the sewage capacity. It sells capacity to the “retailers” such as the City of Aiken, City of North Augusta, Breezy Hill, Valley (Public Service Authority) etc. As was discussed (during the April 16th Work Session) Aiken County only has a minimal amount (~0.3 to 0.5 MGPD) left to sell.

So in regards to HOR, the proposed plant was going to be located in the City of Aiken’s sewer district. So their usage would have gone against the City of Aiken’s capacity limit. Normally, we would assume that if the COA has a capacity of X, and a usage of Y, then the unused capacity would be ZX minus Y. So I assume the HOR was counting on the ability to use some of the Z unused capacity. Then the unused capacity would be Z (X minus Y). So I assume the HOR was counting on the ability to use some of the Z unused capacity.

Except that my understanding is that Z doesn’t exist – that this unused capacity has been committed by the City of a variety of other projects. So we need to add Z’ to the equation – the unused and uncommitted capacity. And evidently for the City this Z’ is a minimal value.

The irony of the HoR situation is that Aiken County has had an ongoing capacity audit underway since before the chicken plant became an issue. (3)

But as I told the Aiken Standard, even if this 6M gpd was magically made available last Tuesday evening, I doubt Council would have dedicated 1.7M gpd of this resource (nearly 30%) to a single user. The outcome would have remained unchanged.

Figure 3. Aiken County’s Horse Creek Wastewater Plant in Beech Island.

City of Aiken’s Currently Limited Capacity

The City of Aiken’s limited capacity issue was discussed during Aiken City Council’s September 11, 2023, worksession. The issue then was a request for a capacity transfer to Valley Public Service Authority for Turner Development’s proposed Weeping Willow residential development outside of North Augusta.

In that Work Session, the city’s utility department reported that the remaining allocated wastewater plant capacity was only 0.6 million gallons per day. (Figure 4)

Figure 4: Meeting Minutes for September 11, 2024 Work Sesssion. Click to Enlarge.

The issue of plant upgrades and operations may eventually fade somewhat from the public eye, but in the short term will remain prominent.

This is because, although the FILOT Ordinance is dead and the City of Aiken has opted to not pursue its own water and sewer rate discount ordinance for HOR, the chicken plant project is far from dead. The issue could return in one year, if not earlier, as House of Raeford all but promised to continue its efforts in a divisive statement (Figure 5) made days after County Council opted to allow the tax incentive Ordinance to “die,” at least for one year.

Figure 5. House of Raeford’s public statement.
It is untrue that Council Council alloted 30 minutes to study the details of the project. At least two closed-door meetings on the subject were held in previous months, and Council delayed the Second Reading for one month to further investigate wastewater management and other project issues fueled by increasing public discontent over the proposed location and impacts of the project. House of Raeford also failed to mention that one City Council member, Andrea Gregory, was opposed to the project due to water issues; and that at least one other Councilmember, Gail Diggs, had also changed her mind. In an April 16th email, Ms. Diggs wrote that, “I know County Council will do what’s in the best interest of our citizens, and that’s not to bring the House of Raeford to Aiken.” For its part, House of Raeford’s commitment to “transparency” is undermined by its failure to divulge project details beyond economic benefits and the company’s charitable programs.

Footnotes

(1) The extent of awareness was highlighted in part near the end of last night’s Aiken City Council meeting. At the 1:23:30 mark of the meeting, during the second “public comments on nonagenda items” period, Aiken resident Curt Hanna posed the question:

“I do have one question, and this is just ignorance, I just heard it today, is it true that there is a moratorium on sewer capacity as of Friday.”

City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh responded by dismissing the existence of any such moratorium by citing and describing the ongoing audit.

(2) Email exchange regarding wastewater capacity issue:

4/17/24 Email sent to Chairman Bunker, Council, and Staff, which included Figure 1 above.

“Good Morning Chairman Bunker, 

I was prepared to make comments and ask general questions about the Horse Creek Plant and sewage allocations last night, but unfortunately was not called up to speak. The sewer capacity issue extends well beyond the HOR plant, and has been raised during City of Aiken (COA) residential development discussions. 

 During the work session last night the issue of Horse Creek Wastewater Plant (HCWP) capacity was discussed. My notes from the Work Session show that: 

1. The Horse Creek Wastewater Plant (HCWP) has a permitted capacity of 20 million gallons per day. 

Question: Is the County preparing to submit a permit amendment to DHEC to increase capacity to 26 MGD or more? Or has it already been submitted? 

2. HCWP currently processes 12-13 MGD. 

Is was unclear to me whether that is currently the maximum capacity due to physical constraints and that upgrades will allow for the full 20 million of permitted use, or if the upgrades will allow for 26 MGD of processing capability, as reported in this Aiken Standard story.  

summary of work to date at gmcnetwork.com further states that: 

“GMC completed a study (Phase I) for the Horse Creek Pollution Control Facility and a design (Phase II) based on the findings of the study. This process provided a confident course of action for the utility. As a result of the project, the facility now has a primary design capacity of 26 MGD with a peak of 65 MGD and a secondary capacity of 20 MGD with a peak of 40 MGD, utilizing a 20-MG offline equalization basin.”

What is the current physical capacity, what is the anticipated permitted capacity, and will physical capacity match permitted capacity? 

3.  The 20 MGD of permitted use is currently allocated to the various water and sewer authorities: Aiken, North Augusta, Valley Public Service, Breezy Hill, New Ellenton (?), etc. 

 a. According to the September 25,  2023, Aiken City Council work session minutes, (pages 3-5 and screenshot below), the City of Aiken is allocated 7.4 MGD of the capacity and is using 6.8 MGD. (see below).   The same minutes state that Valley PSA is allocated 8.6 MGD. 

Question(s) Is it true that more than half of what HCWP currently processes derives from the COA sewer system? Will COA be granted an increased allocation proportionate to other users? 

(I have tried to obtain information on allocations since about that time from HCWP officials but was told the numbers would not be available until after an audit was completed).  

b.  The allocations are being reviewed by a third party auditor who is also auditing plant usage, capacity, and capacity allocations. 

c.  Brian Sanders stated that, at present,  300,000 to 500,000 of existing permitted capacity is excess capacity—it is not allocated to any party and could be “sold” to any of the districts. 

Question(s): Given the expected increase in HCWP capacity, Is the issue of the available capacity for a major user, HOR, primarily one of County capacity, or one of the City of Aiken’s allocated capacity? Are other service districts being constrained in any way by COA demands, and will COA capacity be raised much more than the 7.4 MGD currently allocated? 

I believe this issue is complex enough that the County should issue a white paper on the situation, one in Plain English and one that outlines the current and future limitations of the HCWP, especially as it affects future growth. The paper should also identify the expected operational life of the facility, a full accounting of recent upgrade costs, and the estimates of future maintenance and upgrade costs. 

Thank you, 

Don Moniak”

The response is shown below:

Click to Enlarge. The referenced Aiken Standard story is here.


(3) When I requested capacity data from County officials in September 2023, the response was that an audit was underway and answers could not be provided until it was complete. It remains a work in progress.

* The following information was obtained on May 2, 2024:

Screenshot









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.