Category Archives: Aiken County Government

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.

Cast Your Vote for County Council Seat 8! Here’s What You Need to Know

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.

To confirm your voter registration, precinct location or county council seat number CLICK HERE.

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

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 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

Part I: Meetings Structure and Process

by Don Moniak

June 5, 2023 (updated June 6, 2023).

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.

Question: Is Google Coming to Aiken County? Answer: Aiken County Council Can’t Say.

by Don Moniak

April 19, 2023

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.

(Update: The data center is being built by META).

Footnotes: 

(1) Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT)

The South Carolina Department of Revenue summarizes FILOT as:

“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:

Obscuring the Present

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.