Category Archives: Aiken County Government

Aiken County, Aiken County Government, February 2024, Stormwater and Flooding, Wastewater

$1.1 Million Worth of Water Bills.

Leave a comment

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.

Aiken County, Aiken County Government, City Government, Historic Aiken, Public Safety

The New Downtown County Judicial Complex Takes Shape.

3 Comments

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.

Aiken County, Aiken County Government, November 2023

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

3 Comments

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.

Aiken County Government, July 2023

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

2 Comments

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, Aiken County Government

Aiken County Council

Leave a comment

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.