How Aiken County permitted development activities that led to road closures.
by Don Moniak January 11, 2024
On two occasions in the Fall of 2024 , the University Parkway (Hwy 118) portion of Aiken’s bypass was temporarily closed at its junction with Vaucluse Road. While the official reason for the closures provided by government officials was flooding, a better term would be “debris flow,” as heavy soil erosion caused by major rain events led to the road being covered with sandy sediments that posed an unacceptable risk to public safety.
The first incident occurred after approximately 8.0 inches of steady rain over a 24-hour period— Hurricane Helene and the “predecessor” rain event—fell from September 26-27. The second incident was on November 6th following close to five inches of rain in about a 12-hour period. According to a Department of Transportation report, the cause November 6th closure resulted from sediments that accompanied a stormwater detention pond failure that was under construction.
In both instances, the sandy debris originated from a housing construction site known as Highland Bluffs, where a subdivision of 110 single-family homes is under development, and 116 townhome-style apartments are scheduled for a second phase of development (Figure 1). The developer, Highland Bluff LLC, is operating on a relatively steep slope that was has been described by Aiken County Administrator Brian Sanders at a County Council meeting as “precarious.”
In April 2023, the Aiken County Planning Commission gave the developer preliminary plat approval for the single-family residences. The resolution any identified issues, including any that might be raised by the county’s engineering staff, was required before construction could begin. All of those contingencies were resolved by April 2024.
Construction began in May 2024. The heavily forested site was clearcut except for 10 to 15-foot forested buffers along the two roads bounding the site preparation work. Intensive grading ensued to prepare the site for high density housing.
According to County inspection reports*, problems quickly emerged in May and June that plagued the site all summer. The chronic issues included torn silt fences, an entrance that needed constant maintenance to prevent sediment from leaving the site, and soil erosion via strong winds resulting in sediments “leaving the disturbed area.” There were also “drink bottles/trash found in several areas” in May and “all over” the site in July.
In July, the county inspector reported (Figure 2) that lack of maintenance was allowing sediment to leave the site via swales (drainage ditches) in the site right of way entrances; and that the detention pond that was under construction was lacking riprap (stones placed on the shoreline to prevent erosion), a skimmer (to drain only the topmost, sediment-free layer of water), and slope stabilization. In addition, the catch basins were holding sediment, but sediment was also “leaving the site via a culvert.”
Figure 2: Portion of August 2024 county inspection report.
After a wet July that included at least one rain event of more than three inches, the inspector added that, “many slopes will need to be repaired. Issues along Vaucluse Road need to be addressed.”
By the end of a drier August, water erosion was again replaced by wind erosion that settled fine dust on neighboring properties, the culvert at the entrance was missing riprap, the detention pond still lacked erosion controls, and “both construction entrances (were) allowing sediment to leave site via swales in ROW.”
Figure 3: Before After Figure 4: September 28, 2024 road closureLooking east at Road Closure with sediment across road
Not a single local media source accurately cited the reason for the closure, leaving the misimpression that it was floodwaters that caused the closures, not a debris flow.
At Aiken City Council’s November 12th meeting, Aiken Public Safety Chief Charles Barranco confirmed the latter road closure stemmed from “debris from the property above the road.”
At County Council’s November 19th meeting, the issue was raised during the public comment period. County Administrator Brian Sanders also confirmed the closures stemmed from sediments originating from the Highland Bluffs construction site, and cited the detention pond construction as the primary source.
In response to subsequent questions raised by Council members PK Hightower and Kelly Mobley, Sanders also stated that “they have a right to develop their property,” and that “they are doing everything right.”
However, the County’s inspection records suggest that the County’s own guidelines legal guidelines for site preparation were arguably not met in this instance.
According to Section 19.5-23 of the County Code, these measures include the use of “temporary plant cover, mulching, and/or structures to control runoff…during the period of development or land use change,” disturbing the smallest area practical at any one time, retaining natural vegetation and saving topsoil, and provisions to “effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused by the changed soil and surface conditions; i.e. diversion ditches, grassed or surfaced water-ways and outlets, enlarged and protected drainage channels.
This is not the first new subdivision in North Aiken to suffer from excessive soil erosion during the site preparation phase that impacted neighbors and affected public safety. Similar dust storms originating from the Portrait Hills subdivision in early 2023–permitted by the City of Aiken—covered neighboring homes and businesses with a fine layer of gritty dust and sand and created visibility issues on Highway 19 North.
The lesson learned is that the promises made by local government to concerned neighbors regarding new developments should certainly be treated by concerned citizens with a dose of healthy skepticism.
The rating of a State’s educational performance is measured by various metrics such as standardized test scores, graduation rates, and similar indicators of the quality of the education provided by a State. One rating system might lean more heavily on perhaps test scores while another might look at a combination of test scores and graduation rates. While the listed rankings may vary depending upon the method utilized by the particular organization, the values are typically very similar. In other words, one State would not be ranked 15th by one organization and 37th by another.
In the past 10 or 15 years, South Carolina has consistently been ranked in the bottom 10% of all States regardless of which ranking system one looked at. In the latest listing by US News and World Report, South Carolina is currently ranked at number 42. While still in the bottom 20% of all States, the educational system is ranked higher than it has been in past years, hopefully indicating some improvement and not just a downgrade of several other States. South Carolina is still not quite up there with surrounding States but at least it has moved out of the bottom 10%. Our bordering States’ educational systems are still being ranked substantially higher than South Caroline with North Carolina at 21, Tennessee at 31, Georgia at 25, and Kentucky ranked at 34.
According to the rankings, South Carolina’s educational system is moving in the right direction albeit very slowly. There is still much more work to be done. There is no reason anyone in this State should be satisfied with a ranking in the bottom 20%. So, what can and must be done? It cannot solely boil down to only dollars which is the primary issue one reads about from time to time in the news. It wasn’t that long ago where the minimum starting teacher’s salary in South Carolina was $36,000. Ellen Weaver, SC Superintendent of Education, has been pushing to increase the base salary to $50,000 over the next couple of years. That may help to get more persons interested in teaching as well as motivate some of those already teaching to stay in teaching, but, as the proverbial expression goes, just throwing money at the problem does not necessarily make the problem go away. As we all know, the problem is much more than money.
Teachers Salaries. Before we leave the topic of money, the base salary- whether it is $36,000 or $50,000 may not be enough of factor to convince teachers to work in the traditionally poorest performing districts in the State. Without listing which districts are classified as poor performing districts, one only has to be familiar with the court case of Allendale County School District vs. The State of South Carolina (circa 1993) to know which districts and how many there were, and pretty much still are, considered to be poorest performing school districts in the State. To get the quality of education in each of those districts to where it needs to be, there will undoubtedly need to be additional financial incentives to even get persons to consider teaching and working in those districts.
Educational Facilities. So, what other measures should be considered to help better educate the children of this State? One might look at the better performing school districts and see that they generally have better quality facilities than the poorer performing districts. The districts with better science classrooms and laboratories, better performing arts centers, better athletic facilities, and better overall facilities certainly do seem to have overall much higher performing students. While no one is making the argument that there is a direct correlation between facilities and student success, the State must find a way that each district has the facilities in which to adequately educate the students of that district. Without a good classroom teaching environment, without proper technology, without facilities to allow students to express themselves through the arts, without all those things which help educate and allow the child and young adult to grow, we cannot expect them to reach their full potential while in our schools.
Aiken County School District has made significant improvements with their educational facilities in many parts of the District over the past decade or so. Additions and upgrades were made to several elementary schools including Belvedre, Millbrook, Graniteville and Hammond Hill. A new Leavelle McCampbell Middle School and Highland Springs Middle School were built. Two new high schools, Wagener and Ridge Spring-Monetta, were constructed along with renovations and additions to Midland Valley HS, North Augusta High School and Aiken High School. The new Aiken Career and Technology Center is currently under construction. While several hundred million dollars have been spent on new construction, renovations, and additions, there is still much to do within the District to bring all the facilities up to the standards required by the District. Unfortunately, there are still too many districts within the State that have not made anywhere near the improvements which have been made in Aiken County.
Greendale Elementary School (top) in New Ellenton is one of the oldest schools in Aiken County and is currently low on the list for improvements or replacement. Leavelle-McCampbell Middle School in Graniteville is one of the newest schools in the County.
School Choice. There has been much made over the past year or so about the State’s Superintendent of Education, Ellen Weaver’s support of all educational institutions including private schools, charter schools, religious schools and the home school approach towards education in addition to public schools. Make no mistake- this is support in addition to public education and not in lieu of public education facilities. The intent, as many see it, is that we should support our children as best we can no matter where they receive their education. Some have argued that financially supporting any student- except those at public schools- is detrimental to the public educational system. However, one must consider the reasons why a parent may choose to have their child receive their education in an institution or facility other than a public school. Some reasons include the fact that the child might not get a good education at a poorly performing school, the child might have medical or psychological reasons why a public school at that time is not the best environment for that child, the school does not offer certain courses, the student might want to focus more strongly on religious studies, or the school simply does not provide what a parent would consider a safe environment. Financially supporting a child attending a non-public school should not be viewed, as it apparently often is, as an attempt to downgrade or negatively impact public education. It should, however, be motivation for the State to see if there is a way to improve public education in a district especially where there has been a long track record of the district’s poor performance.
Homework. As we have been seeing for a while now in various school districts around the Country, some schools are implementing a no homework policy. The reason given in most cases is that some students have parents whom check to make sure that the student is doing the homework and, in some cases, even help the student with the homework while other parents don’t even understand or care that the student is supposed to do their homework regardless of whether or not that parent can actually help the student with the homework. In lieu of eliminating homework for that reason, the schools should develop various programs- whether these are after school programs or ones worked in during the normal school hours- to assist students who don’t otherwise understand that homework is an essential part of their responsibility. Obviously, this adds to the school’s workload and could possibly require additional teachers, after school transportation and things like that. However, it is essential that these efforts are made to the extent practical to help keep a student from falling further and further behind in school.
Grade Levels. While it is ideal for a student to keep up with their work and move on each year to the next grade level, this issue of standardized grade levels needs to be given a little more consideration. If in lieu of moving a child up a grade level one year to the next in all subjects, whether they are truly ready in each of those subjects or not, why not move a student up to the next level in only those subjects where they have achieved a minimum level of proficiency? For example, if a 9 year old student is ready to move up to 4th grade for English and Reading but not Math, have that student continue on the current Math curriculum until which time they are ready to move up to the next grade level. We understand that this makes class scheduling more complex and there will some anxieties generated when one’s classmates move on in a subject and a child remains behind in one of those classes. However, this may not be just a few students and when this becomes the norm for a district, the anxiety issues may be not as great of a concern. A change in terminology may help as well. For example, in lieu of calling a class 3rd Grade Math or 4th Grade Math, the course could be called Level One Pre-Algebra, etc. It is well documented that some school districts have been graduating students knowing that they are not proficient in one or more subjects. Statistically, this looks good for the district but is not helping the student achieve future goals.
Student Behavior. Apparently, one of the more sensitive issues is with how to address student behavior while in school and under the care of the teachers and administration. As was mentioned earlier, one reason given by some parents for a student to attend a non-public school is that the family does not feel particularly comfortable with some of the behavioral issues the teachers and administration have to deal with, and other students are subjected to, in a school. The rules for behavior must be clearly spelled out and understood by the students and parents alike. Certain behaviors such as fighting, bullying and things of that nature have always been an issue in the school environment and need to be swiftly and fairly addressed by the administration. These types of behaviors will never be completely eliminated in schools but everyone needs to understand the consequences of such behavior. For whatever reason, the consequences of these behaviors seem to be much better understood by the students in non-public schools than public schools.
Administrative Support. Lastly, but certainly not the least important, the teachers and administration must work closely to create the best educational environment in which to educate our children. We have all heard stories where the teachers in a school did not feel supported by the administration. Teachers are sometimes instructed that when they have a student with behavioral issues, they- the teacher- have to take care of the issue within the classroom. Often, one hears about a teacher losing control and grabbing or pushing a student. While there is no excuse for those actions, the stresses leading up to this could have been the lack of support from the administration in properly addressing certain situations. The administration must be receptive to listening to problems and criticisms by teachers and attempting to resolve those in a timely manner.
Another problem has been where a district may have no clear policy on things such as cell phone use within the school or even within a classroom, but this is quickly changing. Aiken County School District recently joined a growing number of school districts in South Carolina where cell phone use within a classroom is prohibited. Measures such as this have met a fair amount of resistance from parents but overall is viewed as a necessary policy.
We, in South Carolina, cannot continue to accept a poorly performing education system in many of our school districts. Many articles have been written in the past twenty years about how poorly some school districts in South Carolina are performing. A great article summarizing many of these issues, and discussing some potential solutions, was written in an article from Winthrop University – All Talk, But No Action: A Reexamination of Education in South Carolina’s Corridor of Shame (2018).
While there are many reasons for a student not receiving a minimally adequate education, we need to address as many of those as reasonably possible. Without a decent education, many of those students will face many obstacles in their adult lives. Not everyone needs to be a doctor, lawyer, educator, engineer, or have a career job requiring a college degree or post graduate degree. There are a lot of great careers possible without a very high level of education. However, in this day and age, without achieving a minimum level of education- such as a high school education with passing grades- the opportunities for that student become considerably less than if they had gotten a good education. To solve many of the problems, it will take considerably more funding than is currently provided for our educational system- facilities, teachers, administration- especially in our poorest performing school districts. However, it is absolutely essential that we need to move our educational system in the right direction and to move us in that direction as expeditiously as possible.
Tuesday night’s Aiken County Council meeting featured an unusual vote of 5-4, the only such vote for all of 2024.
At issue was the Second Reading of the proposed Fee in Lieu of Taxes* agreement and an associated Industrial/Business Park designation for Project Wisteria (pages 42-91).
Project Wisteria is a planned $23 million small data storage center to be constructed by an unidentified company and appears to be located on 14 acres along Atomic Road outside of North Augusta City limits (Figure 1). The property is currently owned by DCB (DC Blox) North Augusta, LLC; which purchased it for $1,588,400 from Riverplace Holding Partnership in November 2024. The area is zoned Urban Development, but does have residential areas within that district.
The data center will involve a single job worth $150,000 per year.
Figure 1: Proposed location of Project Wisteria data center.
Council members Kelly Mobley, Mike Kellems, Danny Feagan, and Ron Felder voted against the Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) agreement. Mobley and Felder openly questioned the need for a tax incentive for a project that will only create a single new job. Mobley also noted that since the facility will be located on “prime real estate,” the company has already purchased the land, and it is not in an existing county industrial park, there is little reason the County should further incentivize the project.
Council Chairman Gary Bunker and Council members PK Hightower, Phil Napier, Andrew Siders, and Sandy Haskell voted for the agreement and the Industrial/Business Park designation. Siders pointed out the “ancillary jobs” associated with servicing the facility added more value than the focus on a single job.
No other Council member put forth an argument in favor of granting the project tax incentive.
Will Williams of the Western South Carolina Economic Partnership explained that the FILOT payments would be greater for the first five years, but did not explain the structure after that point nor the differences in revenues through the up to 40-year period of the negotiated FILOT agreement (2).
A public hearing followed by the Third Reading of the Project Wisteria FILOT Ordinance is tentatively scheduled for either Council’s January 7, 2025 or January 21, 2025 public meeting.
Still No Live Stream Broadcast of Meetings
The spirited discussion revolving around Project Wisteria was only observed by meeting attendees because Aiken County Council does not livestream meetings for its citizens to observe County government in action.
According to a recent report in The Nerve, Aiken County is one of 20 counties, out of 46, that does not livestream County Council meetings.
Councilman Mobley, who was attending his last meeting as a Council member, has openly advocated for live streaming of meetings for the past year. During the Administrative Committee meeting he again expressed the need for Council to film the meetings, stating that:
“People are asking to broadcast meetings and see what is going on. People want it, we can afford it, and people will trust us more if we do it.”
During the public comment portion of the meeting, I asked the audience of approximately 40 county citizens whether they supported live streaming of meetings. An overwhelming majority raised their hand in support.
“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) See Page 18 of the County’s $6 million grant application for the proposed, and defeated, House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant project for an example of a FILOT payment structure.
The Aiken County Animal Shelter is among the various Aiken County agencies designated for funding through the recently renewed Capital Project Sales Tax (CPST). Passed by voters on the recent November 5th ballot, the tax will contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to fund infrastructure improvements for various county and municipal programs. $1.7 million is earmarked for “Aiken County Animal Shelter upgrades, expansions, and new equipment.”
What exactly these “upgrades” and “expansions” will be, and when they will be implemented, is hard to say. The County Council ad hoc CPST committee initially slated the $1.7 million for a spay/neuter clinic, but then backed off that commitment, with the final line item reading “upgrades, expansions, and new equipment.”
While the dogs and cats of Aiken County could always use better care in general, a new spay/neuter clinic in particular is sorely needed.
Friends of the Animal Shelter (FOTAS) President Jennifer Miller says that while the Aiken SPCA already has a low-cost spay and neuter clinic, that facility can’t handle the large volume of county animals needing that service. In addition, there are fewer and fewer veterinarians available in the county to serve the needs of its pet population. A larger and improved spay and neuter clinic, says Miller, will significantly lower the number of dogs brought to the shelter.
And that is a large number. Over the last four years the Animal Shelter has received approximately 9,000 dogs, either as strays or owner surrenders. In that same time period, the Shelter’s dog transfer program has shipped over 55% of these dogs to rescues and shelters up north.1
Indeed, Aiken County is dependent on the transfer program to keep its euthanasia numbers low. According to Miller, before the transfer program was implemented in 2009, the shelter euthanized approximately 90% of its animals. Since then, largely because of the transfer program, euthanasia rates have consistently been below 10%.
However, one can’t assume that transfer program will be robust forever, as it is dependent on donations and on shelters up north. Christine Hanko, Intake Director of Dog Star Rescue in Hartford, CT, says her program receives approximately 25 dogs per month from southern states. And while she sees the program as continuing in some form in the foreseeable future, she notes that, because of the everyday pressures on Hartford area families, lately her organization has had to take in more local dogs. This change can only have a long-term impact on the number of animals from South Carolina that organizations like Hanko’s can accept, and the dependence on transfers up north speaks to the need for larger and low-cost spay and neuter facilities, as well as stronger oversight into breeding operations.
FOTAS President Miller points to the Greenville County Animal Shelter’s spay and neuter clinic that, after only six years, has reduced the intake of stray animals by nearly 60 percent. Another recent initiative in Greenville County is for an animal care facility that will feature a new spay and neuter clinic, as well as a center for dog training and humane education. Land has been purchased, and the Greenville Humane Society hopes to raise $8.5 million for construction of the facility.
Miller hopes such a combination of public funding and private donations can be replicated in Aiken County.
Given the nature of county government, it is up to citizens to keep the pressure on county officials to schedule and complete a low-cost spay/neuter clinic. And once the project gets going, an extra donation to FOTAS would certainly help as well.
According to information obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the South Carolina Department of Agriculture (SCDA), Aiken County was awarded a $6 million grant by SCDA for the purpose of helping to develop the proposed House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant. Had it been finalized, the grant would have supplemented a probable $10 million grant from the federal government to House of Raeford. The existence of the Aiken County grant and the details of the federal grant proposal were never disclosed. Had the project proceeded, the proposed House of Raeford plant near Exit 22 would have received $16 million in direct public subsidies in addition to discounted tax, water, and sewer rates.
by Don Moniak November 16, 2024
Two weeks after Aiken County Council opted not to move forward on a tax incentive package for the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, aka Project Sunny, the Aiken Standard published an editorial by South Carolina Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weathers that criticized the Council and took a swipe at Aiken County in general for allowing Project Sunny to fail.
Weathers asserted that “the Aiken community will “miss out on the pride that comes from supporting local farmers,” while further stating that Council Council “let their constituents down in failing to gather all the facts;” and that “I’ve heard a lot of misinformation about this project, and I’m disappointed that council never provided an opportunity for the public to learn the facts and weigh the pros and cons.”
What Commissioner Weathers neglected to mention is that the Agriculture Department, the House of Raeford, County Council, the City of Aiken, and the Western Carolina Economic Development Partnership kept the public totally in the dark by failing to provide any information on Project Sunny until opposition to the effort emerged and rapidly grew.
Instead, Project Sunny’s “sponsor” was kept secret until it could no longer be hidden. Only then did House of Raeford and its allies in state government mount what turned out to be a belated, and ultimately futile public relations campaign to try to salvage the project—a campaign that began with a “flowery” presentation to Aiken City Council held during a closed-door Executive Session that should have been on the regular meeting agenda and held in full public view.
In retrospect, Weathers’ frustration at Council’s reticence to disclose any of the facts concerning the project, though not his unnecessary barbs, seems a bit rational because prior to any opposition Project Sunny was a sure bet; and a traditionally opaque approval process was the best means towards winning that bet.
This is evidenced by two grant proposals totaling $16 million that were either barely discussed or not discussed at all during the debate.
Second, on February 14, 2024, Aiken County submitted an application for a $6 million state grant to the South Carolina Department of Agriculture’s Growing Agribusiness Fund—which was funded by a $40 million legislative allocation in 2023. The County’s grant proposal, which was never publicly disclosed, included House of Raeford financial data—assets, revenues, profits, and costs—that was absent from the federal grant application.
The application shows that, contrary to Commissioner Weathers’ assertions, Aiken County government was very well informed about the project details, including water and sewer demands of at least 33.8 million gallons per month—amounts quite similar to the estimates first implied in January 2024 when the City of Aiken sought a generic rate discount for water and sewer use for major users of its utilities.
Aiken County’s grant proposal also displayed knowledge that House of Raeford’s Aiken plant would not only replace its increasingly controversial West Columbia plant, but it would also double the capacity of chickens processed– up to 57 million per year at a rate of up to 1.3 million per week. The doubling of capacity was also known to be dependent upon the creation of 260 new chicken houses to raise broiler chickens, with upwards of 80 new or expanded growers needed to operate the new facilities—a fact that was greatly and inexplicably underreported during the March-April debate period.
Just twelve days after submitting its proposal, Aiken County was awarded the grant by the “Agriculture Agribusiness Infrastructure Incentives Distribution Initiative Panel” during the panel’s Feburary 26, 2024 meeting.
The two grant proposals and the award to Aiken County suggest that the House of Raeford plant was a done deal prior to two unexpected events: a sewer capacity shortfall and a strong public opposition movement—especially from nearby residents.
County Council Vice-Chair Andrew Siders, who, along with County Chair Gary Bunker, were directly lobbied by Governor Henry McMaster (Figure 1) in early April of 2024, would later tell the Aiken Standard that the opposition was “overwhelming,” a sentiment echoed by County Councilman Phil Napier; who represents the district where the plant was proposed to be located.
Figure 1. Emails between state government officials, House of Raeford executive Jantzen Bradley, and lobbyist Tony Denny. The calls occurred two weeks before the Second Reading of a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) Ordinance that would have provided tax rate discounts that can be viewed on Page 17 of the County’s Grant Proposal. The details of the FILOT agreement were never made public during the two months it was in Council’s legislative process. The FILOT agreement failed, at least for one year, after Council opted to not move the Ordinance forward during the Second Reading, which can be heard from a link in The Chicken Plant Tapes. (Email obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.)
The Chicken Plant Location
The two grant applications collectively revealed the location in the northern portion of Aiken County, near I-20’s Exit 22, was based primarily on two factors.
First, it is within 60 miles of most of the company’s existing 80 chicken broiler house growers that supply its current needs.
Second, Aiken County was described in the MEPPA grant application as being “in a rural western/central region of South Carolina, away from major metropolitan areas. This region is represented by rural, underserved, and disenfranchised populations,” (emphasis added) “nearly 13 percent of housing units are vacant,” and the cost of living in Aiken County is lower than that of Lexington County.
The company first settled on a location within Verenes Business Park, which is already zoned for industrial use. As of November 2023, the company had submitted a Letter of Intent (LOI) to purchase the former Avara Pharmaceuticals properties and building on Windham Boulevard.
The site is just south of an undeveloped 146-acre tract owned by the City of Aiken that would have provided a visual screening from the Interstate. However, it is also only a third of a mile upwind from the closest homes in the Taylor Ridge neighborhood, which is composed of quarter to half-million dollar homes on 2-5 acre lots.
The Avara properties total 24.1 acres and the main building is approximately 170,000 square feet, which corresponds to the estimated 165,000+ square foot facility size identified in the County’s grant application, as well as in subsequent reports. The offering price was $12 million, and closing was anticipated for April 2024.
According to an email from Will Williams of the Western Carolina Economic Development Partnership to a local resident, House of Raeford passed on the Avara property after “they determined they could ‘settle’ but not be able to get exactly what they wanted.” Another issue raised in the Williams email was that “I didn’t want odor nor feathers on Windham Blvd”—legitimate issues raised by chicken slaughterhouse opponents.
By the time the County’s grant application was submitted to SC Department of Agriculture, the location had changed to an 87-acre parcel along East Frontage Road next to the existing Shaw plant. This site is generally upwind from more than 100 homes along Old Camp Long Road—the closest being only 1,000 feet— and at least thirty properties in a newly developed area known as Big Branch Farms, where lot sizes range from 5-25 acres. It was to be three miles generally downwind, but close enough to be of concern, to the Summer Lakes neighborhood and the older Millbrook neighborhood.
Clearly, House of Raeford’s due diligence that led to a conclusion that the “region was rural, underserved, and disenfranchised” was undermined by the fact that the area is increasingly dotted with suburban and exurban developments of Aiken, as well as Augusta and Lexington, within an older mix of farms and mixed-income neighborhoods. In fact, instead of a chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, a suburban-style subdivision is now planned for the East Frontage Road site.
In its search for a more suitable rural setting than West Columbia, House of Raeford instead chose an area undergoing steady residential growth. Instead of looking at its own demographics research deficiencies, the company and its allies in state government blamed the failure of the project on public “misinformation.”
Avara Plant site, with one-mile downwind radius indicated East Frontage Road site, with one-mile downwind radius indicated
(Feature photo: Concept design of the exterior of the chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant contained in the County’s grant application).
