There will be a special primary on August 15, 2023 for County Council seat 8 that was vacated this past May when long-serving Councilman Willar Hightower was compelled to resign so that he could focus his strength on overcoming some major health issues. Below are the basics on this election.
First, confirm your information
To confirm your voter registration, precinct location or county council seat number CLICK HERE.
Who is running
Four candidates are vying for this seat and will face off in the August 15th Democratic and Republican primary elections. In alphabetical order:
DEMOCRATS P.K. Hightower Brian A. Parks
REPUBLICANS James Hankinson Michael Rozocvich
When to Vote
EARLY VOTING Early voting for County Council District 8 special primary election starts Monday, July 31 and continues through Friday, August 11, weekdays only, from 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
PRIMARY DAY VOTING Primary Election Day is on Tuesday, August 15th from 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Where to vote
WHERE TO GO FOR EARLY VOTING MONDAY, JULY 31 – FRIDAY, AUGUST 11
The Aiken County Government Center 1930 University Parkway Aiken, SC 29801
WHERE TO GO FOR PRIMARY DAY VOTING TUESDAY, AUGUST 15
According to the Aiken County Board of Voter Registration and Elections, the precinct locations for District 8 include the following:
Aiken No. 1 – St. John’s United Methodist Church, 104 Newberry St. N.W. Aiken No. 2 – Lessie B. Price Aiken Senior and Youth Center, 841 Edgefield Ave. N.W. Aiken No. 3 – Aiken High School, 449 Rutland Dr. N.W. Aiken No. 4 – St. Mary Catholic Church’s Smith Hall (temporary), 125 Park Ave. S.E. Aiken No. 5 – St. Mary Catholic Church’s Smith Hall, 125 Park Ave. S.E. China Springs – Center Fire and Rescue Department Substation, 7 T & S Drive Graniteville – Hope Center, 3 Hickman St. Montmorenci No. 22 – First Baptist Church Montmorenci, 44 Old Barnwell Road Shiloh – J.D. Lever Elementary School, 2404 Columbia Highway North Six Points No. 35 – USC Aiken Convocation Center, 2049 Champion Way Vaucluse – First Baptist Church of Vaucluse, 2 Church St. Warrenville – Hope Center (temporary), 3 Hickman St. Six Points No. 46 – USC Aiken Convocation Center (temporary) 2049 Champion Way Couchton – Aiken Electric Cooperative, 2790 Wagener Road Redd’s Branch – East Aiken School of the Arts, 223 Old Wagener Road Levels No. 72 – Aiken Electric Cooperative, 2790 Wagener Road.
OTHER DATES FOR COUNTY COUNCIL SEAT #8 SPECIAL ELECTION 2023
August 29: Primary runoff (if needed) October 17: Election Day October 31: Election runoff (if needed)
We welcome questions, below, on the election/voting process and will do our best to find answers. Please, no back and forth debates on national politics and issues. Many thanks. 🌿
Aiken County Council holds public meetings on the first and/or third Tuesdays every month—depending upon the state of the next fiscal year’s budget. The proceedings are in the spacious Council Chambers on the third floor of the nearly decade-old County Administrative Building that many locals refer to as the Taj Mahal.
Tomorrow, June 6, the meeting starts with a 6 p.m worksession and the regular meeting begins at 7 p.m. Information on agenda and agenda packet is in the calendar section at https://www.aikencountysc.gov
If you have never attended a County Council meeting, it is worth a visit. The meetings are highly disciplined proceedings,
During all meetings, Council members sit across and above the audience. There is no cell phone use, off-the-record whispering between adjacent Council members, and members only speak when recognized. Any violations are closer to anomalies than patterns.
Another subtle practice is that Council members take turns introducing ordinances, resolutions, or other agenda items. Not only does it show your elected officials are literate, it requires them to pay attention to the matter at hand.
In this arrangement, citizens know who their elected officials are. And they also know who represents the administration side of the Council-Administration form of government.
Off to the right hand side of Council sits County Administrator Clay Killian, Assistant Administrator Brian Sanders, and County Attorney Brad Farrar. Also in the audience are other key staffers like Finance Director Lynn Strom.
Staff only speaks when recognized, primarily to answer questions and comments from Council. An entire meeting can pass without a peep from in-house County Attorney Farrar, but when he does speak it is clear and reasonable.
Council rarely enters closed door Executive Session during meetings to seek legal advice. It is more likely provided in full view.
Larger legal issues not related to impending contracts and negotiations are generally discussed openly, more often in committees than the Regular Meeting. The most notable example was the February 2022 review of state firearms law by Mr. Farrar, who laid out the issues in an educational manner.
Meetings strictly adhere to Robert’s Rules of Order. If the rules were a Jeopardy category, Chairman Bunker would likely sweep it, as he can be seen relishing a difficult and confusing set of motions and amendments.
The meetings end with the Meeting of the Whole, the time for public comments. Each speaker is given only three minutes. However, citizens with specific County level safety, property, or administrative concerns, to name a few, often remain at the podium while Council addresses their issues and concerns. Some of these back and forth sessions with citizens can last longer than the meeting’s announced agenda.
The end result is not always satisfactory, but questions are always deferred to staff who are expected to answer and act upon legitimate problems, and staff is expected to answer or report back with answers. The Council member from the involved district is also assigned to track the issue. There are no exhortations to ‘give me a call.”
This hardly means the process is perfect. Decisions can be made based on incomplete information, and ordinances highlight benefits of a project while glossing over impacts. Recently Council approved a major fee in lieu of taxes deal without divulging the name of the company.
Meetings are not subject to live stream video recordings, although quality audio recordings are available upon request.
The Freedom of Information Act requirements for meeting minutes and release of agendas and agenda packets achieve minimal compliance. Citizens have minimal time to examine an issue.
But, in short, Aiken County Council meetings are disciplined affairs where Council and Staff communicate openly in a manner that can be contentious but is usually productive, and there is a consistent procedure for at addressing citizen concerns.
It is worth a visit if only to watch, but preferably to bring to Council’s attention any concerns about roads, growth, county facilities, illegal dumping, property management, employee retention, crime, nuisances, or just to complement staff on the condition of the building.
At its Tuesday, April 18th public meeting, Aiken County Council approved the third reading of two different ordinances related to Project Sabal and its undisclosed representative Starskey LLC—a project in Graniteville being touted as a $900 million investment with fifty new jobs:
One ordinance to “Authorize The Execution And Delivery Of A Fee In Lieu Of Tax (1) (FILOT) And Incentive Agreement By And Between Aiken County, South Carolina And A Company Identified For The Time Being As Project Sabal (The “Company”).” (Pages 9-11 of Agenda Packet)
The other ordinance “to Develop A Jointly Owned and Operated Industrial/Business Park in Conjunction With Edgefield County.” The industrial park is described in an attachment, but Exhibit A which shows the property is left blank. (Pages 13-15 of Agenda Packet)
The ordinance states the project creates no financial liability for the county and that “the benefits of the Project are greater than the costs;” but no costs in the form of resource or environmental impacts are identified. Only the jobs and investment benefits are listed in the ordinance.
At the last public hearing on the matter four weeks ago, Chairman Gary Bunker declined to answer any questions about costs or even identify the industry involved.
For the final public hearing this week, Aiken-Edgefield Economic Development Partnership Director Will Williams was summoned to answer questions; and informed Council that the Project Sabal “Company,” Starskey LLC, represents a data collection company that is “still doing due diligence on whether they have enough (electrical) power” to establish a new facility in the Sage Mill Industrial Park area.
So it could be Google, Meta/Facebook, Microsoft, or another major data collection company with nearly a billion dollars to spend. But a nondisclosure agreement prohibits Council from divulging the real company’s name at this time.
Starskey LLC’s agent is Corporation Service Company of Columbia (2), and its legal representative is Nexsen-Pruet of Columbia, a powerful firm which recently merged with Maynard Cooper and Gale to form one of the largest law companies in the Southeast.
Starskey LLC, via Nexsen-Pruet, purchased ~560 acres of land from Wyatt Real Estate Investment, LLC (Agent: Weldon Wyatt) in 2022 for $19,299,555. The property consists of four contiguous parcels adjacent to Bridgestone’s Giant Tire plant to the east and Bettis Academy Road to the west; near the Edgefield County line in the Graniteville area.
Properties purchased by Starskey LLC in 2022
When asked how much electrical power is required, and how much water is necessary for the data collection center, Williams responded that 200 megawatts of electric capacity was needed, and that Aiken Electric Cooperative is working with the company to provide its power needs.
As for the water issue, Williams did not offer hard data, stating only that “the company continues to reduce their water usage over time. In the process they have relocated a water line” in the Breezy Hill Water and Sewer District.
Because of the massive water demands at data centers, Google and other major tech companies are working to reduce water usage at their water-intensive data centers. At their Douglas Georgia data center Google boasts “we’ve designed an innovative reuse water system to use recycled water for 100% of our cooling needs.” And at their Berkeley County, South Carolina data center rainwater is reportedly collected as a water source for their cooling system. Williams provided no details of any water conservation measures being proposed at this site.
Aiken County’s deal has similarities to the investments Google has made at its sprawling Berkeley County, South Carolina data center operations since 2007. For example, Google’s $500 million investment in Berkeley County in 2014 involved:
A great deal of secrecy including nondisclosure agreements for elected officials.
A holding company called Maguro Enterprises, whose agent was also Corporation Service Company of Columbia; and who paid $17 million for property in Berkeley County.
The latter by itself might not mean much, as Corporation Service Company (2) is the listed agent for dozens of South Carolina LLCs. And it could be purely coincidental that Nexsen Pruit hired Berkeley County’s Attorney Nicole Ewing in 2014, who had extensive experience navigating that county’s deal with Google.
But the nondisclosure agreement was a contributing cause to Councilman Kelly Mobley opting to vote no on the final reading, as he explained that:
“There is a non disclosure agreement. It is not fair for elected officials to not be able to tell our constituents who this is we are voting on.”
Mobley had, minutes before, offered the opinions that:
“We can’t ignore the positive in the economic development, but with that said, we’re being asked to give and approve an unknown. What do we have? A real estate holding company that bought the property, rerouted a water main on Breezy Hill, but are still not willing to tell us who they are?”
“I am concerned about the water, we do not know what percentage taken is going to be for water treatment , and we don’t know what the water usage is going to be.”
Newly elected Councilman Mike Kellums also voted no, saying that “Council should know by the Third Reading what the project is by that time. I will be voting no tonight as well.”
The final vote was 7-2, with Councilmembers in the majority offering some of the following supporting arguments:
Phil Napier: “You can be assured that Breezy Hill (Water) has the capacity for water and sewer capacity if they say they do…These large corporations do not publicize their names while they are negotiating. This county needs more jobs. We can pull the plug if something comes up.”
Andrew Siders: “Aiken County is not putting one dollar towards this.”
Gary Bunker: “This does not commit Aiken County to any costs. It is a Fee in Lieu of Taxes and not a liability.”
Sandy Haskell: “They don’t want their competitors to know what they are up to.”
Councilmen Ron Felder, Willar Hightower, and Danny Feagin all voted yes without offering any insights into their vote.
Every Council member supported the project, but only two did not support the continued level of secrecy. The contradictory message from supporters of continued secrecy is that county taxpayers should rest assured there is ample water for the plant, and the county’s wastewater system can handle the outflow; yet nobody can say how much water is necessary and how much impact on county infrastructure there will be.
Likewise, the “special source credits” mentioned 165 times in the 48-page Project Sabal FILOT agreement are never defined because they remain to be negotiated. While there is no liability incurred by Aiken County, the caveat for the special source credits is that future FILOT payments could be returned to the company, which could deprive the county of expected revenue. This stipulation is listed in capital letters on Page 12:
“THE NEGOTIATED FILOT SPECIAL SOURCE CREDITS AUTHORIZED HEREIN SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A GENERAL OBLIGATION OF THE COUNTY, BUT SHALL BE A LIMITED OBLIGATION OF THE COUNTY PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE NEGOTIATED FILOT PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY HEREUNDER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT.”
The real details of the project’s costs and incentives might never be known. The Post and Courier reported in 2020 that in Berkeley County, the county keeps the financial incentives a tightly guarded secret. Google, and other tech companies, is also “very protective” of its water usage and has applied twice to increase the amount of water it pulls from nearby aquifers to supplement, if necessary, the four million gallons a day it uses to cool its data collection machines.
“Industries that invest at least $2.5 million in South Carolina may negotiate for a fee-in-lieu of property taxes. This can result in a savings of about 40% on property taxes otherwise due for a project. Certain large investments may be able to further reduce their liability by negotiating the assessment ratio from 10.5% down to 6%. For large investments, the assessment ratio can be reduced down to 4%. The county and the industry may agree to either set the millage rate for the entire agreement period or have the millage change every five years in step with the average millage rate for the area where the project is located. Any personal property subject to the fee in lieu of property taxes depreciates in accordance with South Carolina law, while the real property is either set at cost for the life of the agreement or can be appraised every five years.
A fee in lieu of property taxes is granted by, and at the discretion of, the county where the project is located. The industry must make the $2.5 million investment over a five-year period to qualify. Large investment projects have eight years to meet their increased investment requirements. During this period, all property that is placed in service pursuant to the agreement is subject to a fee instead of ad valorem property taxes. A county may give the industry an additional five years to complete the project and place new property in service subject to the fee. A single piece of property can be subject to the fee for up to 40 years with the county’s consent. The total project can be subject to the fee for up to 50 years with the county’s consent.”
The FILOT rate for Project Sabal is listed as four percent.
In between his terms on County Council and his election as County Council Chairman, Gary Bunker was a popular columnist for the Aiken Standard. in his columns he routinely described Fee in Lieu of Taxes as an industrial tax incentives. In 2013 he wrote that South Carolina’s tax structure:
“Encourages retirees to settle here, who benefit from low property taxes. Their limited retirement income isn’t greatly penalized by the high income tax. Conversely, this tax structure is hard on businesses and manufacturing. It encourages fee-in-lieu of tax agreements and special source revenue credits to get around high property tax rates on large industrial developments. In essence, the left hand must undo the damage caused by the right.”
(2) In a typical loop for shell companies, Corporation Service Company’s listed agent is United States Corporation Company; and the latter’s listed agent is Corporation Service Company.
Starskey LLC was registered as an LLC in Delaware on March 7, 2021, and in South Carolina on October 24, 2022 prior to its December 7, 2022 property purchase. All that is public are the names of the registered agent:
Aiken County Council’s continued failure to record recent history.
by Don Moniak March 22, 2023
Nearly ninety percent of Aiken County Council’s February 21, 2023, public meeting involved discussions on topics brought to Council’s attention by four Aiken County citizens. During the “informal meeting of the whole,” the two longest discussions regarding wetlands degradation and road damage from stormwater runoff, and the status of the Nicholson Village Community Center, collectively lasted nearly thirty minutes.
The discussions were lively and productive. Council member Kelly Mobley of North Augusta maintained his status as the most persistent and inquisitive Council member on the record, as he tried to dissect jurisdictional issues, and at one point asking whether a county decision had negatively impacted a property owner.
Council Chair Gary Bunker continued to avoid loose ends, and wrapped up both segments by tasking Council members and county staff with appropriate followup.
On March 7, 2023, Council approved the February 23rd meeting minutes which inexplicably reduced thirty minutes of serious discussion involving several decisions to a single sentence; and referred any interested parties to a recording kept on the third floor of the decade -old County administration building that looms above University Parkway.
“Council heard from Dwayne Gamm, Vickie Simons, Don Moniak, and Victoria Patterson on various topics. If verbatim transcript is needed for future reference, all statements are recorded on file with the Council Clerk.”
Aiken County Council records its sessions, but does not broadcast them or archive the recordings online. Although government bodies in South Carolina are not mandated to broadcast their proceedings, a bill currently in the General Assembly would require School Districts to televise School Board meetings.
Aiken County Council meeting minutes have been minimalistic for years, mostly, but not always, complying with the letter of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, but routinely failing to meet the spirit of the law. SECTION 30-4-90, Minutes of meetings of public bodies, requires
“All public bodies shall keep written minutes of all of their public meetings. Such minutes shall include but need not be limited to:
(1) The date, time and place of the meeting.
(2) The members of the public body recorded as either present or absent.
(3) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided and, at the request of any member, a record, by an individual member, of any votes taken.
(4) Any other information that any member of the public body requests be included or reflected in the minutes.”
Anybody seeking information as to what concerns are raised during the “informal meeting of the whole” agenda portion of each meeting would end up nearly empty handed. Anybody wishing to learn what present-day matters are of such concern to compel people to travel 15-30 minutes one-way to petition their elected officials for redress of grievances or to offer solutions can only learn by attending meetings and waiting for the public comment period prior to adjournment.
At best, the substance of matters discussed is routinely reduced to a few words, such as the documentation on a discussion about fences two weeks ago:
“Anita Straway spoke to Council about her concerns of the current fence ordinance, and asked Council to please consider amending the ordinance.”
Last night two county residents raised concerns regarding management of Boyd Pond Park and the dusty, unpaved road leading to the county’s new trash transfer station off Connector Road in the Graniteville zip code area. I also challenged Council to follow the spirit of state FOIA law and document the substantive issues brought forward and any decisions made to address those issues.
The next Council meeting is April 18, 2023; providing Council staff four weeks to document the substance of those discussions. Aiken County would do well do live up to its motto by documenting present day concerns raised in the very recent past.
Aiken County Council to Honor Survivors After Awareness Week Ends?
by Don Moniak February 7, 2023.
Aiken County Council is scheduled to approve a ”Resolution to Declare February 1-7, 2023 as Gun Violence Survivors Awareness Week in Aiken County, South Carolina” at its tonite’s public meeting. The resolution is part of Council’s regular “consent agenda,” a long list of items not requiring a public hearing that is approved as a single agenda item. In the absence of an amendment to the consent agenda, the resolution will be approved.
The vote on the resolution declaring Aiken County’s “commitment to reduce gun violence in our communities” is planned for the waning moments of the “awareness week.”
Tonight’s vote will take place nearly a year after a more memorable discussion of firearms during a County Council meeting, provoked in large part from a disinformation campaign by the Washington, D.C. based advocacy group Gun Owners of America (GOA). On February 9, 2022, GOA issued an alert to its membership: “SC: STOP THE PRIVATE PROPERTY SHOOTING BAN IN AIKEN COUNTY!”
The issue originated with a County resident suffering a gunshot wound on her arm from a reportedly errant round of target shooting by a neighbor. During the public comment period at the end of Council’s January 18, 2022, meeting, the victim voiced their concern that law enforcement had no legal means to cite the shooter.
In the ensuing discussion, Council Chair Gary Bunker indicated that other county residents were voicing concern about similar situations, while Councilmember Phil Napier cited a recent event in a high density residential area (Trolley Line Station) and stated, “I am pro Second Amendment, but I am also pro-safety.” Council agreed to have legal counsel investigate the matter, but did not commit to any action.
On February 9th, GOA issued its false alarm describing a nonexistent proposal by County Council, along with a ludicrous insinuation that even a prohibition on hunting was on the table:
“Aiken County Council members are planning to propose a county-wide ordinance that could effectively end the right to shoot on one’s own property. Such a proposal could include minimum acreage requirements, berms subject to inspection, and perhaps a prohibition on hunting.”
Gun Owners of America February 9, 2022 Alert.
The group urged its members to “make plans to attend the County Council Meeting to oppose any restrictions on shooting on private property,” turning a public safety discussion into a Second Amendment Rights rallying cry.
The news release did contain the factual statement that “State law already prohibits discharging firearms at structures.” South Carolina law states:
“It is unlawful for a person to discharge or cause to be discharged unlawfully firearms at or into a dwelling house, other building, structure, or enclosure regularly occupied by persons. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” ( SC 16-23-440 (A))
It is also unlawful to shoot at “any vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, or other conveyance, device, or equipment while it is occupied.” If these laws are enforced literally, however, it is not clearly unlawful to shoot onto adjacent private property where people are outside enjoying their private property rights. Aiken County Sheriff Department deputies with experience witnessing lawyers find loopholes in the law are unlikely to take action when the law has an obvious loophole.
The Judicial and Safety Committee Briefing
Following GOA’s alert, Aiken County Council was inundated with calls and comments from constituents. Vice Chair Andrew Siders posted a notice on social media denying all of the allegations in the alert. The level of disinformation was later described as an “internet frenzy.”
During the period between meetings, Aiken County Attorney Brad Farrar investigated the public safety issue, as requested, and prepared a 55-slide power point educational presentation for Council’s Judicial and Public Safety Committee public work session held at 5:30 P.M., ninety minutes prior to the regular council meeting. The presentation reviewed both state firearms laws and the county nuisance ordinance in an open manner—and Council chose not to retreat to a closed-door Executive Session to accept legal advice, as allowable by state open meetings laws.
Farrar presented the case that firearms regulation remains solely the purview of the state legislature, explaining in a subsequent February 16, 2022, memo that “the area firearms regulation in South Carolina is “completely preempted by state law,” and that even ordinances or resolutions that are “verbatim reaffirmances of State and federal law, are preempted” by existing state law. (1)
He also argued that, while case-specific, the existing nuisance law covered most complaints pertaining to target-shooting. There was no recommendation for Council to advise the legislature of any need to close the loophole. Following his presentation, Councilman Sandy Haskell called the GOA alert a “prime example of fake news” and stated “the county has no intention of passing any laws or regulations because the state won’t allow it and we don’t want to.”
County Chair Gary Bunker summarized the message by saying, “This is a civil issue. If a target shooter negligently shoots at you on your property, go find yourself a lawyer. Case closed.”
At 7 p.m. the Council chambers filled up to a nearly standing-room only status.
6:58 P.M. February 15, 2022, Aiken County Council Chambers.
Following the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, Chairman Gary Bunker went off-agenda to announce to “all the people who are here because of a social media post,” that there was nothing there to hear:
“There was no such thing as a shooting ban on private property ever proposed, no such thing was ever contemplated, no such thing was on the agenda tonight, and no such thing will be voted on by Council tonite. For some people who spent time on social media, such item was not on the agenda. We did take legal advice regarding a very narrow issue involving a target shooting accident during the safety committee meeting, and decided to take no further action.”
At that point, more than fifty people left the room and the meeting followed its published agenda. Nobody has been shot by an errant target shooter since the meeting.
7:05 p.m. Feburary 15, 2022, Aiken County Council Chambers.
Footnote:
(1) Farrar did not discuss the fact that most large municipalities, including the cities of Aiken and North Augusta, have ordinances on the books regulating the discharging of firearms that pre-date existing state law. Section 22-4 of Aiken City Code still reads, for example, in part:
“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm, air rifle, or other weapon within the corporate limits of the city. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to apply to persons discharging firearms in protection of their life or property; to peace officers in the actual discharge of their duties as such; to members of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard, or Reserve when in the performance of their duties.
(b) Landowners discharging a firearm on that landowner’s property to protect the landowner’s family, employees, the general public, or the landowner’s property from animals that the landowner reasonably believes pose a direct threat or danger to the landowner’s property, people on the landowner’s property, or the general public commit no violation of this section nor commit any unlawful act under the Aiken City Code by doing so.”
23-31-400,
B) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance to use a firearm in this State.
(C) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (B) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than two years.
(D) This article does not apply to persons lawfully defending themselves or their property.
