South Carolina continues to make improvements in education, with the predominant publicized change being the increase in the minimum starting salaries of teachers, which is intended, in part, to encourage more people to consider education as their profession. While this is a necessary first step, there is much more that needs to be done.
So much of a person’s life revolves around their level of education – whether this is K-12, college, trade schools, etc. This is not to say that one cannot have a healthy, successful life without a certain level of education, but one’s education is a big factor in determining the opportunities one will have or not have to earn a living.
Unfortunately, many either don’t understand this at a relatively early age, or they don’t have a family or even a community to encourage young children to work hard to develop the skills necessary to achieve certain educational goals.
Simply put, many children are just not in an environment that allows them to be sufficiently educated. Add to this some of the poorest-performing school districts with less than adequate educators, and we continue to not achieve our goals of adequately educating many of our population.
None of this is a secret. We all know it. We just don’t spend much time thinking about it. The question is, why are we not doing more to improve the situation? Most of us have busy lives. Most of us have expenses we are dealing with – mortgages, car payments, groceries, savings, etc. Most of us are working hard to give our own children the best chance for success. So, what is our responsibility, if any, to help others, particularly school-age children, to achieve their educational goals — whether they or their parents recognize the need to achieve such goals or not?
When doing a search online for “How To Fix US Education” or some similar description, there are an almost endless number of sites addressing various educational concerns expressed by Ph.Ds., M.Eds., educational institutions, etc. Some concerns were very obvious as they are what we hear being discussed in South Carolina at school board meetings, around election times, and in the media from time to time. However, some articles made me pause for a minute and think about whether these really were problems that needed to be addressed and, if so, how best to address them. The ideas on what needed to be fixed (for K-12 as there were a number of pieces related more towards education beyond high school) in no particular order included such things as:
• The method of education we have used for more than 100 years no longer works, and we need to change what we are doing.
• Standardized testing does not work and needs to be replaced.
• Parents need to be more involved with their child’s education.
• People living in poor conditions do not receive the same level of education as those living in wealthier areas.
• Poorer school districts do not have adequate facilities.
• Teacher pay is far below what is necessary to attract and retain good educators.
• Many administrations do not adequately support their teachers and staff.
• A teacher’s role should be more of a guide to help students to embrace “self-directed learning” such as hands on learning in lieu of teaching in a formal classroom.
• Hybrid learning is essential.
• End segregation in school systems based upon wealth.
• Have “behavioral interventions” in lieu of zero-tolerance rules.
• Significantly reduce the size of classrooms.
• Provide school choice for all students.
• Eliminate math beyond basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
• Provide mental health programs and counseling.
• Eliminate homework.
It would obviously take volumes to address even a few of these topics. And the solutions to those issues believed to be valid would have to be provided by someone far smarter than me. However, I do want to focus on several of these concerns, in no order of priority, that I believe will help us in South Carolina continue to head in the right direction.
1. One issue is the condition and types of facilities available in the poorer school districts. I believe that the State, and not just that particular school district, should upgrade facilities to meet a minimum standard for the State. There needs to be much discussion on what we expect those minimum conditions to be. We should consider keeping some level of the State Income Tax, presently around 6%, to help get those facilities to where they need to be in all school districts. Taxpayers already get a huge break on Federal taxes, where the government allows a couple filing jointly to receive a $31,500 deduction without itemizing, even though average charitable giving for those earning under $100K per year is less than $3000.
2. Teachers should receive adequate pay — first-year minimums and pay raises based upon the teacher’s performance. Pay for working in the poorest of school districts should be increased to whatever it takes to incentivize teachers to work in these areas. The idea is that we must get very good teachers in those areas.
3. Grades should be eliminated. No, not scores on papers and exams, but grade levels as we now have them. When a student is good in some subjects and struggles with others in lower grades, they are frequently just moved up to the next grade level with their classmates. For example, a third grader could meet the 3rd grade requirements in all subjects except maybe math. At the end of the school year, that child is promoted to 4th grade — in all subjects. Now they are in 4th-grade math, whereas they might only be on a 2nd-grade math level, which only gets them further and further behind. Changing to such a process where you are not always promoted from one grade to the next would be somewhat difficult for the child until it becomes more of the norm. In the example used with math, maybe the courses are changed to be named Basic Math 1, Basic Math 2, Algebra 1, Algebra 2, etc., and not associated with a specific grade level. Similar naming could be used for all subjects.
4. Following up on the topic of grades and grade levels, more schools should have after-school programs to support students who are behind. This would entail additional expenses for snacks, teachers, and transportation. It might only be a 90-minute program. And maybe the program would still allow the student to participate in after-school sports or other activities prior to the 90-minute program. In either case, the objective is to help a student struggling in one or more classes
5. My last suggestion, and the one I feel is the most unfortunate, is where the school needs to assist parents in understanding their role in supporting their child. I know most schools have regular parent/teacher conferences, especially when a child is performing poorly. There is no way every single parent is going to accept responsibility that the child does their homework, gets proper rest, studies for exams and otherwise keeps up with their classwork, but maybe these conferences need to be held more frequently, depending upon how the student is performing.
Education is so important for our children and our society. We cannot expect every child to finish K-12 school, but we have to give them the best chance possible to be successful. Education impacts on how most of them will live out their adult lives. This year, South Carolina had 86.7% of students graduating on time, but only 75.1% of them were college or career-ready. Superintendent Ellen Weaver stated, “We have to make sure that our diplomas are worth more than the piece of paper that they’re written on”.
I know we can do better than that, but it is going to require significant changes in our efforts and commitments to all children — not only from our citizens but our leaders as well. There are so many issues out there, but educating our youth is probably the best chance we have to improve their lives and our Country.
Dan Reider is a Mechanical Engineer who has designed schools for over 40 years in South Carolina.
Aiken County’s sewer processing capacity is a very finite resource, and the number one limitation on growth in the County, and thus, the City of Aiken. The County operates the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant and sells a portion of its processing capacity to the City of Aiken and several other utilities, including the City of North Augusta and Valley Public Service Authority.
Until now, the City of Aiken Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Manager, and Aiken City Council has treated it like an infinite resource, with Council ultimately granting every sewer service request from outside the City during this decade. Even following the news in the first half of 2024 that Aiken County had sold more than 95 percent of its permitted sewer capacity and the City itself was overallocated, the City of Aiken proceeded with business as usual, even granting sewer allocations to several more out-of-town developments constituting more than 1,200 homes—a total administrative commitment by the City amounting to more than 0.3 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater flow.
At its January 12, 2026 Work Session, Aiken City Council and the public were informed that the City’s future additional allocation from the County’s current wastewater plant expansion would be 40 percent lower — down to 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) from the previously assumed 2.5 MGD. In addition, it was disclosed to Council that the City had only 0.41 MGD of remaining processing capacity from its current allocation with the County. At the same time, the City has at least 0.50 MGD of immediate claims against that remaining gallonage awaiting approval from the Aiken Public Service Authority, leaving a current 90,000 gallons per day deficit. That deficit is arguably significantly larger when considering all the sewer service approvals made by City Council over the past few years that are not accounted for in the 0.50 MGD schedule.
These other Council-approved projects, not yet counted for, are direct demands on the City’s share of the upcoming 1.5 MGD of expanded processing capacity. An analysis of the already Council-approved projects that will be serviced from the future 1.5 MGD is made far worse when new projects currently under review by the Planning Department are also taken into consideration. It appears that Aiken’s capacity to meet future needs is extremely limited.
Despite these disclosures, the City’s sewer policy is still operating on a first-come, first-served basis; not on an in-City project priority basis.
by Don Moniak February 22, 2026
Since the late 2010’s, the City of Aiken has been aggressively expanding the extent of its sewer and water distribution system; and continues to grant further expansion despite limitations on capacity available from the Aiken County Public Service Authority (PSA).
This expansion has not been accompanied by an increase in sewer capacity. Aiken does not have its own wastewater treatment system, and is reliant upon the Aiken County Horse Creek Wastewater Plant (HCWP)—which is operated by the PSA— for its processing needs. As a customer of the PSA, the City must pay the fees recommended by the PSA and approved by Aiken County Council.
In early 2024, an audit of the plant’s then-permitted capacity of 20 million gallons per day found that the wastewater processing capacity already purchased was nearly at the permitted limit.
No clear public summary of the situation resulting from the audit has ever been issued, but a May 2024 memo (Figure 1) from County Administrator Brian Sanders to Aiken County Council provides the most salient details—the County had sold all but 30,000 gallons a day of its physical and permitted capacity of 20 million gallons a day (MGD). A 6.0 MGD expansion would allow the sale of additional capacity to provide something of a stopgap measure until the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant is further expanded. According to one engineering firm, that future total could be as high as 40 MGPD. (It is important to note that the plant is currently processing about 12 MGPD on average, of which more than half derives from the City of Aiken.)
Figure 1. May 2024 Email from County Administrator Brian Sanders to Aiken County Council. The referenced tables from the audit can be found through this link. (click to enlarge)
The County also recognized that it was not recovering the actual costs of its processing, as it had not raised rates since 2012. In response, County Council approved a 62 percent increase, from $1.50 per thousand gallons to $2.41 per thousand gallons, for sewer treatment processing.
The bad news for the City of Aiken was contained in a subsequent email from County Administrator Brian Sanders to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, in which Sanders wrote that there had been a “major breakdown of communications between the County and DHEC during the permitting process.” According to the audit, the City of Aiken was permitted nearly 0.4 MGPD above its allocated amount since 2012. The good news was that an accounting adjustment added another 1.03 MGPD, leaving the City at that time with 0.64 MGPD of available capacity.
Several months later, following a closed-door Executive Session, County Council approved a massive fee increase for capacity connections (the one-time fee for new capacity purchases). The increase functions as a de facto impact fee, one achieved without any public hearings or public scrutiny.
The rate rose from $0.49 per gallon per day to $10.89 per gallon per day. For example, at an average of 300 gallons per day per home, the new fee increased costs for a 100-home development requiring sewer connections from ~$15,000 to ~$317,000.
Aiken’s Recent Sewer and Water District Growth
The City of Aiken has been expanding its utilities systems and services in two manners—-to grow the City and to grow its sewer and water business.
Expanding Sewer Services to Grow the City
Efforts to grow the City have largely involved annexing contiguous tracts for high-density developments. In addition, there have been a few in-city developments.
The most notable of these is the commitment to developers within the Powderhouse Connector project area, where the City essentially traded sewer connections for road rights-of-way. (See Development Road for more details.)
Aiken has also provided services to several other developments that required annexation, including a district of low-income and affordable apartment complexes in the Dougherty Road area, the May Royal Drive development, which involves more than 200 homes, and another 150-home subdivision along Highway 19.
Expanding Sewer Services to Grow the Business
More notably, Aiken has grown its sewer business by providing sewer and water services well outside the City limits. In doing so, it imposed its urban/suburban growth model upon County residents accustomed to life away from high-density developments, high-impact industries, and relatively high peak-hour traffic. The business growth model also imposed costs upon the County, most notably upon emergency response and volunteer fire resources. (1)
One of the most questionable expansions is eight miles north of the City limits in the area of Interstate 20’s Exit 18. As reported in Aiken Takes on Exit 18, the City has embarked on an expansion that would extend nearly two miles west of Verenes Business/Industrial Park, involving a $3.5 million sewer lift station, and potentially provide sewer services for more than a thousand acres of development—some of it adjacent to or within the City’s Brunswick Tract that was obtained to protect its Shaw Creek water supply; and all of it well beyond any future hopes for annexation.
The planned, but at this point only attempted, growth around Exit 18–six miles north of City limits—also involved a secretive effort known as Project Unicorn, widely acknowledged as an effort to lure the Buc-cee’s company to establish its presence in Aiken County. The status of that project is unknown, but it is still rumored to be in the offering.
The City also pursued, in conjunction with the County, the unpopular notion of providing up to 1.5 MGD of sewer capacity for the proposed House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, and even voted 6-1 in favor of an Ordinance to provide utility services during its First (and only) Reading. Ultimately, the proposal was defeated when a critical mass of citizen objections meshed with the aforementioned sudden and surprising realization by the County that its sewer processing capacity was nearly fully allocated. (see Sewer Capacity Makes the News).
Similarly, there have also been smaller efforts at sewer-line extensions that could lead to larger developments upwards of ten miles north of City limits. The most notable example is the 7-11 gas station at Exit 22, where the City spent more than a million dollars to extend sewer and water lines across the Interstate, where the 7-11 is, at this point, the only beneficiary of that largesse. (see The Public Costs of a 7-11 Store).
All of the above-mentioned developments occurred prior to mid 2024, and before the surprising findings of the capacity audit.
However, since that time the City’s Planning Commission has recommended, and City Council has approved, sewer services for three new subdivisions: Creighton Meadows (August 2024, 250 homes six miles north of City limits next to the Shaw Plant on Frontage Road) Bridge Creek (January 2025, 725 homes one mile north of City limits along Hwy 19), and Bedford Place (January 2025, 93 homes, four miles north of City limits along Columbia Highway/Hwy 1 N). The issue of the City’s limited remaining sewer capacity never entered the approval equation for these proposed subdivisions, where annexation is generally a distant dream.
This largesse has now contributed to an even greater pinch in sewer allocations for new developments.
The 2026 Reality Check
The present reality was addressed at the January 12, 2026 Aiken City Council Work Session, where City Engineer Thomas Parrot outlined the City’s sewer capacity problems. The highlights of his slide presentation, which can be viewed in the agenda packet and heard in this audio, include the following highlights:
1. The City was notified in early 2024 (around the time of the Chicken Plant controversy) that its “remaining allocation (at the plant) was fully committed.”
2. The City only has 0.41 million gallons per day (MGD) of remaining existing capacity, but there are an immediate “~0.5 million gallons per day” of development needs with capacity approval by the PSA currently pending. That leaves a present deficit of 90,000 GPD. The City is negotiating with the County to obtain a potential credit of 0.1 MGD from previously approved projects that are now stalled or abandoned, which would leave it with a slight surplus.
3. The County has only agreed to sell the City 1.5 MGD of new capacity after its 6.0 MGD Sewer Plant expansion is completed next year. This is 1.0 MGD less than the 2.5 MGD City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh told City Council in June 2025 (Pages 456 to 474) was necessary to meet current and future demands.
4. The City implemented a policy in July 2025 to make developers pay the upfront cost of the $10.89 per gallon connection fee (although there is no record of City Council approving such a policy (2)
5. Council was told that sewer service approvals are operated on a “first come first served basis.”
6. Staff recommended that Council pass an Ordinance requiring that a Sewer Impact Fee be assessed for all projects outside of the city that are not yet approved for sewer. (3)
However, data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request shows that while there is an immediate approved project’s need for 0.5 MGDP, the capacity promised by the City Council easily exceeds that figure.
In a document titled CMO Project Spreadsheet, the list of projects ranging from the preconceptual to working review stage that require PSA sewer capacity approval is nearly 0.65 MGPD, more than the 0.5 MGPD reported during the Work Session.
According to City Engineer Thomas Parrott, the 0.5 MGPD is a “planning estimate,” while the 0.65 MGPD “reflects a snapshot of the spreadsheet” that may include “preliminary numbers that are intentionally conservative,” projects at different stages of definition concept,” values that may be updated as plans change, or are on the list but “are not yet at a point where a formal capacity request would be made.”
In addition, no allocation figure is identified for the proposed 705-home Bridge Creek subdivision, for which City Council approved sewer and water in January 2025; and only Phase I of Creighton Meadows (147 homes out of 247 approved in August 2024) is listed in the spreadsheet. In total, ~850 homes are left out of the equation. This commitment by Council could eventually add up to as much as 0.25 MGPD of the 1.5 MGPD in additional capacity.
According to Mr. Parrott, no capacity is listed for Bridge Creek because the City “has not received a formal, usable submittal or a defined phase with enough information to quantify flow.” However, the Sewer and Water Services Agreement has been recorded with the County’s Register of Deeds; and a $40 million lawsuit filed this week against the City argues that such a recording constitutes a long-lived approval by the City and not one that expires (4).
The worksheet also contains a list of commercial projects, but has no sewer data associated with those businesses.
Completely missing from the project list are smaller developments like planned public school expansions and downtown developments.
All this begs the immediate question: why were the Planning Department and Planning Commission allowed to keep accepting and processing applications that required new sewer connections and allocations well outside of city limits? A second question is why City staff, not City Council, is setting policy, particularly the unwritten “first-come, first-served” policy? And a third question on many minds is why there is zero discussion at the Council level of a temporary moratorium on new sewer service for developments well outside of the City limits, at least until City Council can define some priorities that set the standard for which developments receive the benefit of this very finite resource?
Figure 3: Aerial view of the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant near Beech Island, SC. From Brasfield and Gorrie. Expansion area is in center of photo.
Footnotes:
(1) During a Planning Commission workshop last fall, County Development Director Joel Duke described the adverse impacts on the County from the sprawl enabled by the sewer and water expansion policy. These include strains on law enforcement, emergency response, and volunteer fire departments. The Center Fire Department has borne the brunt of this expansion in terms of emergency fire and accident response, and the City of Aiken has made no effort to pay its share of the increased costs.
(2) There was no such item on City Council’s agenda at its only July 2025 meeting.
Section 44-5(b) of the Municipal Code requires developers to pay a $400 per housing unit sewer facilities charge, which works out to only ~$1.25/gallon. There are no apparent plans to repeal this fee.
The new $ 10.89-per-gallon charge mandated by the County and now in effect is not yet part of the City Code.
It is unclear whether the City was authorized by Council to pass the costs of the de facto impact fee along to developers.
(3) The First Reading of the Public Hearing for a Sewer Capacity Impact Fee Ordinance will be held Monday, February 23, 2026 during Aiken City Council’s Regular Meeting. Information and comment opportunities for the Ordinance can be found on a dedicated City web page.
(4) This past week Crowell and Company filed a $40 million breach of trust lawsuit against the City of Aiken. At issue is whether a sewer service approval for a 60-acre parcel along Toolebeck Road, granted by City Council in 2020, is still valid. A key element of the lawsuit is the assertion that the recording of the sewer services agreement, which was signed by City officials, confers a long-term right to that service, one that does not expire as long as other conditions are met.
How one developer who successfully pursued a half-million dollar incentive agreement with the City of Aiken expected more financial assistance; and how the City acquiesced.
by Don Moniak February 20, 2026
This past fall, spectators at two Aiken City Council meetings–October 27 (1:50 to 2:08 mark) and November 10 (from 1:27 to 2:26 mark)–endured more than an hour of confusing and indecisive Council discussions during public hearings. Specifically, the agenda item in question was:
Public Hearing of an Ordinance Approving Certain Economic Development Incentives for Residential Development to be Developed by Van Rock Holdings and Commercial Development to be Developed by VP Riverside, LLC (see pages 246-293).
The proposed economic incentives were for the Rutland Place development across from Aiken High School (see map). Aiken City Council approved the Concept Plan in July 2024, which consists of 245 housing units on 38.5 acres to be developed by Van Rock Holdings of Greenville, SC, and seven commercial parcels on an 11-acre strip fronting Rutland Drive to be developed by VP Riverside of North Augusta.
VP Riverside purchased the property in 2022 for $2.5 million. In 2025, they divided the property into three parcels, with the residential 38- acre portion being sold to Aiken Rutland Place LLC of Greenville for $2.79 million; a 4.57 acre parcel containing the Tractor Supply store being sold for $0.75 million to 3D Development Holdings LLC of Georgia; while VP Riverside retained a 6.3-acre parcel acre for future commercial development.
The anchor of the commercial development, a Tractor Supply store, was in the late construction stages at the time of the debate, and has since opened. In this instance the developer sought, and eventually received, an incentive for one part of the project that was nearly completed. Two fast food chains and an auto parts store are reported by the developer to be under consideration for development on the remaining six acres.
The Economic Development Incentive Ordinance.
In August of 2018, the Aiken City Council approved an Economic Development Incentive Program Ordinance that allows for up to fifty percent of certain fees, and fifty percent of the first five years of business license taxes, to be reimbursed to any developer who meets a specified investment threshold. The Ordinance does not specifically place a cap on reimbursements, but since its enactment reimbursement caps have been placed on all incentive awards.
The eligible development costs include utility connection and sewer impact fees levied per Section 44-5 of City Code, building permit fees, the first five years of business license fees, and any “such other Incentives that the Council, at its discretion on a case-by-case basis, determines are appropriate given the amount or type of investment made by the Project Sponsor.”
The vaguely specified thresholds are that a project is consistent with the City of Aiken Comprehensive Plan, advances the goals of the City, and provides benefits to the City that exceed the value of the incentives.
The Ordinance was not passed on a whim. It was first presented at a work session in April 2018, had its first reading four weeks later, and was subjected to a subsequent public forum. Based on the input collected during that period, the Ordinance was amended and passed in its final form on August 13, 2018.
Since 2018, one small business and numerous developers have benefitted from the incentive program (Table 1). Although the Ordinance does not place a cap on the potential fees, it has been city policy to make fee estimates and cap the reimbursement at 50% of estimated fees. If actual fees exceed the estimate, then the developer receives less than half of those costs.
Table 1: Economic Incentives approved by Aiken City Council since the program began in August 2018. Link are provided to all the incentive Ordinances for each project. The first three incentive agreements went to small local businesses. After that, the agreements were with larger developers. In two instances, the recipient was Great Southern Homes (Portrait Hills and Palomino Oaks). In one instance the developer, Mark at Woodford Apartments, has since achieved tax exempt status from the SC Department of Revenue by becoming a low-income housing provider–thus the City is not realizing the tax benefits for that property.
Since the inception of the incentives Ordinance, no developer had ever publicly challenged the City’s incentive numbers.
That changed during the first public hearing, on October 27, 2025, on the Rutland Place incentives package.
After the Ordinance was introduced, VP Riverside* partner Charles Johnson argued at length to City Council that the fee estimates submitted by his firm were higher than those formulated by City staff.
At one point, Mr. Johnson described the amount of actual fees to be reimbursed as “punitive” to developers because the reimbursement amount was capped by the estimated amount incorporated into the Ordinance. He stated:
“Since this ordinance really pays back 50% of the total fees paid by the developer over five years by having a number that limits us to a a dollar value is really punitive to the developer. It’s not punitive to the city if the number’s low because if the developer pays more, they just don’t pay them back more. However, if the number’s too low and the developer pays more, they’re limited on what they can get back.
So, with that being said, having our numbers in there, which we feel are absolutely correct, and we’re willing to defend that, would not be punitive to the city, but if we went with the lower number that was submitted, and that is the cap on it, it’s certainly punitive to the developer.”
No member of Council challenged this assertion; but neither did any member of Council support an open-ended incentive based on actual final costs.
Despite the insurmountable confusion over the financial data, City Council unanimously approved the incentives on the First Reading, setting up a final public hearing two weeks later. In the interim, Council guided staff to work to eliminate the confusion by reengaging with the developer to provide final, more accurate and better understood numbers before the Second Reading of the Ordinance.
The Second Reading of the Public Hearing occurred on November 10th, and the discussion was even rockier; the numbers more confusing. At this meeting, VP Riverside partner Todd Glover–who is also Executive Director of the powerful Municipal Association of South Carolina–took over the task of arguing that city staff were shortchanging VP Riverside.
In short, the ensuing debate only added to the confusion and City Council voted for a continuation of the Second Reading.
During the next month, VP Riverside and city staff met to iron out differences, with VP Riverside clearly gaining financial benefit from the exercise. During the continued December 8, 2025 Second Reading, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh described the City’s interactions with VP Riverside as “hand-holding” and “everything short of singing Kumbaya.”
The size of the final incentive subsidies for VP Riverside dwarf previous awards (Table 1). The rise in the estimates of project fees between October 25 and December 8 is also striking (Table 2).
Date of Estimate
Commercial
Residential
Total
10/27/26
$113,135
$700,855
$813,990
11/10/26
$118,910
$842,910
$961,820
12/08/26
$375,495
$713,032
$1,088,520
Table 2: Range of estimates over time for fees related to proposed financial incentives for VP Riverside and Van Rock Holdings. The subsidy is 50% of the costs, which amounts to $544,260 in total potential reimbursements.
The financial differences between earlier versions and the final figures (Figure 1) were not revealed in the City Manager’s memorandum for Council’s December 8th meeting; when the Second Reading (see pages 119-136) was continued. The necessity for economic incentives for residential development during a housing boom across the County was never discussed or evaluated.
With no debate, the incentive package was approved by a unanimous vote by a Council with three new members.
* VP Riverside LLC’s agent is Attorney Ray Massey, who is one of City Attorney Gary Smith’s law partners. Smith did recuse himself from the Second Reading of the Rutland Place concept plan public hearing in July 2024, after that potential conflict of interest was raised in a letter to City Council. At the time, he stated he was unaware of what Mr. Massey’s role, if any, was in the project. (see Page 4 of meeting minutes)
Mr. Smith did not recuse himself from the VP Riverside Incentive Ordinance process.
(Editor’s Note: The following letter was submitted to the City of Aiken Planning Commission on January 13, 2026. It pertains to the proposed 172-home subdivision (Figures 1 and 2) along Toolebeck Road named Toolebeck Commons. An application for city sewer service was withdrawn (Figure 3) the day of its Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday, January 13, 2026. For further information see The Ten Foot Wide Strip of City Land and Satan’s Matchstick.)
Figure 1. Area around the proposed Toolebeck Commons subdivision (approximate outline in red). It is bounded by Toolebeck Road on the South and Woodward Road on the North. The Southeastern boundary abuts a 5.5-acre Dominion Energy electrical substation. Figure 2: Site plan for Toolebeck Commons submitted to City of Aiken for sewer services request.
Figure 3. Attendees of the January 13th Aiken City Planning Commission were greeted with this late notice that the application had been withdrawn for that meeting. The future of the application is presently unknown.
Toolebeck Road Comments Date: 1/13/2026
To: The Members of the City of Aiken Planning Commission, Marya Moultrie
From: H. B. Gianos, Montmorenci Farms, LLC
Re: Written comments to be added to the Planning Department report and legal record regarding the Toolebeck Road utility service application for sewer capacity outside the City Limits.
Well folks, here we are again. The Toolebeck Road application from Crowell and Company out of Georgia (aka Keystone Builders) is back in front of the City Planning Commission asking for a new discretionary sewer approval for a high density, high traffic (over 300 trips a day) small lot subdivision outside of the City Limits that has now grown to 172 homes. It was 156 homes on 66.5 acres in August 2025 when it was turned down by this Planning Commission, but the developer has since contracted for another 6 acres and are now proposing a larger 172 lot project on 72.5 acres. So, the impacts on the neighborhood’s roads, the area’s character, and the community’s available services have actually gone up, while their non-conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area remains a screaming red flag.
So why is the developer back in City Hall, and not at the County Planning Department with a septic based site plan with about 1/3 the density proposed here, after 1) the City Planning Commission’s denial on August 12th, 2025 of the motion to approve an Annexation, Change of Zone to PR, and Concept Plan Approval of the smaller 156 Lot Subdivision Site Plan, 2) the Aiken City Council de-annexing contiguity to the project parcel via its ten foot strip in a 7-0 vote in the Fall of 2025 and thereafter distancing themselves from the proposed development and, 3) the City subsequently declaring the applicant’s former August 2020 sewer service resolution has expired?
The answer to these questions is very simple. You can’t build high density, high profit residential subdivisions in this area of the County without getting access to the City of Aiken’s Sewer System. And in this particular case, the access to the City’s sewer system is a completely discretionary vote on the part of the City of Aiken. Getting that discretionary sewer approval is this developer’s magic lottery ticket that turns this industrially cited land into supercharged, exponentially more valuable high density housing land.
This discretionary sewer service application has unfortunately been accompanied by a highly flawed, biased, and eye brow raising narrative from our own Planning Department that whitewashes the history of this project, and fails to disclose the material facts and impacts on which to fairly base the Commission’s review. The departmental memorandum and narrative contained in the Planning Commission Agenda of January 13th, 2026, is required to serve as a complete and accurate picture for the Planning Commission to review, analyze and vote on.
Their report couldn’t be farther from that standard, or the truth. Instead, it is a crystal clear indictment of the Director’s and Assistant Director’s own biases, admitted violation of City Policy, failure to disclose material facts the absence of which can mislead and misinform the Planning Commission Members, and a complete contradiction of the recent actions of the City Planning Commission, City Council, and City Manager’s Office to negate this high impact, nonconforming proposal.
Here is a list of material defects, misleading statements and critical non-disclosures that appear in the Planning Department report distributed to the Commission.
Material Non-Disclosures:
A) No mention that on August 12th, 2025, the City of Aiken Planning Commission turned down this application for an Annexation, Zone Change to PR, and a Conceptual Site Plan approval of 156 homes. The proposal currently in front of the Commission is for an even larger project of 172 homes.
B) No mention that subsequent to the Planning Commission’s denial, the Aiken City Council voted 7-0 to de-annex the ten foot strip of City owned property that created contiguity with the applicant’s property. Substantive policy comments were made that evening by several Council members about not letting growth spoil the eastern part of the City and concentrating the City’s limited utility resources in high priority projects in the western and northern parts of the City. Judging from this report, the policy statements endorsed by the City Council are falling on deaf ears in the Planning Department.
C) No mention that the City of Aiken has declared the August 2020 Utility Services Resolution granting sewer access (to only one of the tax lot parcels submitted as part of this application) to be expired, and as such, null and void.
D) No mention that the applicant has openly and publicly threatened litigation against the City to refute the expiration of the August 2020 Utility Services Resolution and has engaged litigation counsel. So the question immediately arises as to who is advising the City and the Planning Department on even accepting an application for sewer service while under the threat of litigation? Why have they not asked the applicant for a stipulation waiving suit against the City as a condition of hearing the new application? Otherwise, this appears to be a clear cut case of developer bullying and intimidation to “force” through a completely discretionary approval using threats.
E) That the Planning Department is aware that the City has only 410,000 gpd (gallons per day) of remaining capacity at the County Sewer Treatment Plant, but already has approximately 500,000 gpd of claims against that remaining capacity. On paper, Aiken is not in a position to offer sewer at the present time. The City will not receive additional capacity until the County plant expansion is completed in 2027. The City’s future capacity increase has been reduced by the County to 1.5 million gpd from the 1.5 million gpd requested by the City. Allocating scarce sewer capacity to only the high priority projects within the City Limits will be the most discussed planning topic for the next several years.
F) There are no unit mix calculations in the report showing how many bedrooms are in each home. Therefore, there are no sewer capacity reservation calculations presented for the project. A reasonable number based on 172 units of varying size would be 55,000 gpd.
Therefore, what is the status of the payment of the City’s sewer capacity reservation fee at the current rate of $10.89 gpd (estimated at $598,950) which fee appears to be payable by a non-City project at the time of requesting said capacity based on comments made by Thomas Parrot P. E. at last night’s, January 12, 2025, City Counsel Work Session.
Withholding Material Information and Providing False Context:
A) There is no mention of the industrial setting of the proposed project or its adjacency to the largest Dominion Energy substation in town and the Horse Creek Academy Charter School that has 1308 students plus faculty, staff and deliveries. The school already causes long traffic lines twice a day in front of these parcels that materially impede the safe flow of traffic. They also failed to discuss that traffic is currently so bad on Toolebeck Road that a traffic light was recently installed at Deloach and Pine Log in an attempt to mitigate the dangerous conditions caused by the current volume of traffic coming off Toolebeck Road.
B) The Director’s narrative conspicuously mentions that the project site is only 156 feet from the City’s boundary in an attempt to sway the Commission Members thinking. However, the report makes no mention of how the City’s own Comprehensive Plan views this area as an “Industrial Node” and is nearby to the “Eastside Transition Zone”, which specifically excludes high density residential as a use.
C) This report makes absolutely no mention or reference to the material reasons, cited by various Planning Commission Members during the hearing of August 12, 2025, that lead to the denial of the application. Or, that none of those concerns have been addressed or remediated in the now larger site plan submitted with this application. In fact, this is basically the same site plan that was rejected, except it includes even more lots. Concerns that the developer was not willing to address then, and has not addressed now, include:
1) high density residential being the wrong use for this location, and not in keeping with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, (2) showing only a single entrance for this number of homes is a violation of Planning Commission practices and the recently City adopted Aiken Safe Streets Initiative, (3) developer opposition to funding a full secondary entrance onto Woodward Drive, and paving designated portions of Woodford Drive to City standards to accommodate the City’s emergency vehicles and alleviate traffic congestion onto Toolebeck Road and, 4) evidencing an agreement with the railroad company that owns Woodward Drive for access, entrancing, and paving permission.
Bias, Favoritism, and Violation of City Policy
A) On January 14th, 2025 the City Planning Commission reviewed City Services Requests for three projects, Cooper Place, Bridge Creek, and Bedford Place. Each project was located in the County in a UD Zone. Same as the Toolebeck Road application. Notably, each of the three reports submitted by the Planning Department to the Planning Commission for review that evening contained much more restrictive language than is contained in the Planning Department’s Toolebeck report. In fact, the Toolebeck report is entirely missing this important language. Here is the missing language:
“Policy Regarding Planned Residential ( PR) Zones
On October 23, 2006, the City Council adopted a policy that all rezoning, annexation, and City utility service requests for primarily residential development four (4) acres or larger will be developed under the PR (Planned Residential) zoning regulations.”
Obviously, the removal of this clause from the Toolebeck report reflects the Planning Director’s and Assistant Planning Director’s personal decision to hold this developer to a lower standard and far less scrutiny than the three others. Adhering to the City’s PR Zone criteria gives the City vast site plan modification powers in exchange for granting sewer access. Something that the Planning Director has consciously and wrongfully taken away from the City Council in the event they ever needed to use it.
Additionally, in each of the several “conditions sections” of the other three reports, the operative words “should be included” are used as instructions to the Planning Commission. In the Toolebeck report the words “could be included” have been substituted for the words “should be included” under each condition. How is it possible for the Planning Department to hold identical sewer requests to different standards? Why is the Toolebeck developer making out like a bandit, while the other three developers have to comply with stricter criteria?
B) The Toolebeck report states “plans have been submitted and approved for a public sanitary sewer line to connect the property to the nearest line serving the nearby Deodar Plantation.” I submit that this approval is a direct violation of written City Policy. The approval referenced in this sentence was granted in early May 2025. Engineered drawings had been submitted approximately a year earlier in 2024.
At that time, the proposed project was contiguous to then City Limits (it had been since November 2021) and was required to be annexed in order to legally access sewer services pursuant to signed documents.
City Policy states:
“New owners of contiguous properties (properties touching the City boundary) requiring a new water and/or sewer account are required to complete a petition for annexation and submit the executed document to the Planning Department prior to receiving the requested City service. This document starts the annexation process which requires a Planning Commission public hearing and two readings of an ordinance and approval by the City Council. The process takes approximately two months”.
The developer did not submit its Petition of Annexation until July 7, 2025. It does not appear that the Planning Department should have even accepted the drawings for review in 2024 without a Petition of Annexation on file, or have issued an approval of the drawings in May 2025 without a Petition of Annexation on file. It seems so implausible that this department cannot function within the policies set forth by the City, or even exhibit the ability to check a file for key documents.
At the Planning Commission hearing of August 12th, 2025, I asked Director Moultrie on the record if Resolution 08102020C had expired and if it was still valid, since it solely underpinned the high density requested on the site plan. Her answer was that she didn’t know. She later added, that it didn’t matter anyway, if it had expired. That answer only makes sense if she believed that the Annexation Application was going to get rubber stamped that night and the applicant wouldn’t need to rely on Resolution 08102020C to obtain sewer access. Turns out it did matter, a lot.
False Statements Contained in the Report:
A) Page one of the narrative portion of the report affirmatively states that an original concept site plan referred to in Paragraph A below was approved during the City of Aiken’s approval of the request for City Sewer Services in 2020, which culminated in the issuance of Resolution 08102020C. This is a patently false and misleading claim. The resolution clearly states it is supplying services to the property and makes no mention or reference whatsoever to the approval of any site plan. In fact, as described below, that original site plan was abandoned by the developer. This entire portion of the narrative should be stricken, and the Planning Commission so alerted prior to being allowed to vote on the application.
Misleading the Planning Commission
A) The Planning Department’s narrative refers to an “original concept plan including 247 single-family homes (169 detached and 78 attached) on 60.65 acres” against which it attempts to make comparisons to the current 172 lot submission. Please note, this “original concept plan” was a “placeholder” plan attached to the 2020 sewer service request application and subsequent resolution. The City has declared that resolution to be expired, null and void. Therefore, such placeholder site plan is also null and void. Additionally, said placeholder site plan was never the subject of an actual application or hearing. It is a “dead” drawing.
Furthermore, said placeholder site plan was not the site plan submitted for the annexation, zone change, and concept approvals application in 2025, or the premature sewer line extension approval. There is no validity incorporating that plan into any comparisons to the current submission.
In fact, throughout 2025 this proposed development has been publicly processed by the Planning Department as a 156 lot subdivision. So in reality, the number of lots has actually gone up to 172 and all comparisons to the “original plan” from 2020 should be ignored as irrelevant and inaccurate.
Furthermore, as a humorous side note regarding the Planning Department’s selective inclusion of comparisons based on the abandoned 247 home plan from 2020, said plan would reasonably be estimated to use 75,000 to 80,000 gpd of sewer flow. This represents 20 percent of the City’s remaining capacity 410,000 and over 5.3 percent of the City’s future 1.5 million gpd of capacity. Why would any sensible Planning Commission approve such a detrimental request to allocate the City’s scarcest resource to an out-of-City, non-conforming, high neighborhood impact proposal?
B) An analysis of the site plan and the Planning Department’s narrative shows a “double count” of large unbuildable utility easements as open space. These easements are already open space in perpetuity. They cannot be built on. The developer is not giving up 20% of his “net” buildable area for open space in this site plan. The Planning Department’s claim that the developer is meeting a 20% open space allocation, with or without the retention pond being included, is not supported by a dimensional schedule or an outline of said areas. There is also no supporting calculation of the amount of open space attributed to the utility easements as a percentage of the total claimed open space. A 20% allocation to open space would be 14.5 acres.
That does not appear discernible on this site plan.
C) No mention whatsoever that the traffic trips generated for this site plan are higher than the traffic trips generated for the site plan that was denied on August 25th, 2025.
D) No mention or discussion regarding the large amount of unbuildable utility easement acreage shown in the site plan being used as part of the density per acre calculations. Using gross acreage rather than net buildable acreage is a clever way to make the density numbers look more acceptable to the public. The true unit density per acre for this proposal should be recalculated, using only the net buildable acreage not including the utility easement areas, the retention pond, and the required perimeter buffers. I believe you will see the density per acre change dramatically.
Council members please consider your statutory obligations before voting to spend $2,000,000 of federal funding, awarded to the city of Aiken for Northside and Downtown redevelopment, as a buyer’s incentive to purchase the remaining publicly owned Project Pascalis properties.
Before any sales agreements were made, small business owners who are/were renting space in the city-owned Pascalis Property buildings expressed interest in buying their rented premises. They did this privately and publicly. They were reassured publicly but then denied the opportunity to purchase. The tenants were given 5-year lease agreements which were all signed and returned to the city. The city arbitrarily reneged on their offer of a lease to one of the tenants, while giving 5-year leases to other tenants. The city also paid substantial relocation expenses to yet another tenant. This is a commitment made by the city to assist with the relocation of displaced tenants, made with the caveat that tenants are/were not to discuss any part of the agreement publicly. An unusual city policy of threatening our small business owners in order to control their ability to speak honestly about city business practices.
Why were the Pascalis Properties only marketed as a group? The notable exception to this was Newberry Hall, which was sold as an individual property by the city to its original owners at a substantial loss to the city. The city acquired Newberry Hall, without an appraisal, for $2M and then sold it back, one year later for $1.15M. Although that is a $850,000 loss for the taxpayers, there is a precedence set by selling a business property to its current tenant for the appraised value. Less city incentives.
Would a company interested in restoring the Hotel Aiken want to be forced to also buy Vampire Penguin (with a five-year lease in place) and Warneke Cleaner, amongst the others? Why would a buyer who might be interested in restoring and reopening a business in the McGhee Block want to buy a hotel?
Why weren’t the publicly owned Pascalis Properties offered for sale to local business owners/tenants who wanted to purchase them?
Why are the properties only marketed as a group?
How much money could the city have made by selling these properties to local small business owners at the appraised values less incentives?
Why were some tenants given lease agreements while others promised lease agreements that were not honored?
Why did (at least) one tenant qualify for substantial relocation compensation between $50-75K in addition to the agreed amount?
If Newberry Hall could repurchase their property, at a loss to the city, then why not the others?
Why are/were small business owners bound to secrecy agreements?
The city decided to hire Colliers to market the remaining Pascalis Properties. We have not seen the criteria used to make this decision.
After the sale of Newberry Hall for $1.15M, the remaining $9.5M of city owned properties from the failed Pascalis Project had the approximate cost to taxpayers of $8.35M. Arguably, there were many other costs that should be considered, bond origination and payments, real estate commissions, closing costs, etc., but the $8.35M is the lowest amount due to repay taxpayers their investment made by city government in commercial real estate.
Although we have requested the closing statement for the original purchases by the city of the Pascalis Properties, our FOIA requests have been denied.
Colliers used one of its related companies to conduct an appraisal of the properties and established the value and consequently, the sales price of $2.5M. $8.35M worth of our property was appraised for $2.5M and no questions were asked? No second appraisal was ordered; no additional comps were offered. Colliers is the agent for the seller’s (us) and the buyers…and they set the price by using a Colliers company to appraise the property.
A small group was assembled by city government, including the Colliers agent, to review the offers made by prospective buyers on the Pascalis Properties and recommend which would be accepted. We do not know how the group members were chosen. The group held closed meetings without any minutes being taken. They did not meet publicly or comply with FOIA laws. Information was not available to the public on the choices available, or the decision-making processused to choose the winning offer on Pascalis Properties.
What was the criteria for inclusion in a group assembled to disburse more than $8.35M of publicly owned property? Why was this group exempt for FOIA Laws, public meetings, or any reports?
Why was an appraisal of $2.5M accepted on property the city paid $8.35M in 2021 That’s more than a 70% devaluation in a market that was very bullish.
What were the exact criteria used for choosing the preferred buyer from the alleged six other offers made?
Why was only one offer made available to the public?
Why was Colliers hired as our agent, and also the buyer’s agent and the appraiser, and on the city’s team of decision makers? They remain our agent and on the city’s team after the expiration of the listing agreement.
When asked, on the record, if a parking garage was a contingency of the sales agreement of the Pascalis Properties to the selected bidder, the City Manager stated it was not. At that time the appraised value of $2.5M was the agreed upon sales price with a $200k allowance to be paid by the city to the selected bidder for “design services”. Careful readers would have also discovered that the contract required the city to “repurchase” property from the selected bidder that would include Warneke, and other property not fully described, at a price that is not disclosedto build a parking garage at the city’s further expense (estimated at $7M). We can assume the city would then also pay Colliers a commission to “re-purchase”. This was presented at a public hearing and was accepted by the council’s vote.
The City Manager informed the public that a parking garage was not a contingency of the sale of the Pascalis Project properties, however the city contract with the successful bidder required the city to first sell, then “repurchase” land including Warneke Cleaners, but not fully described, for anundisclosed amount, for the construction of a parking garage at the city’s expense, which we now know is estimated at $7M.
The sales price of $2.5M was established by an appraisal from a company linked to the buyer’s agent, who is also our agent with the city reimbursing $200,000 for “design services”..
We do not know any specifics about any other offers made because no information has been made available. One offer made was rumored to be a purchase for $5M without contingencies. Another offer was rumored to be for a slightly lower amount made by a renowned historical restoration expert representing an established hotel restoration business without contingencies.
Now we are told that the selected bidder will also require the city to pay $2M for improvements to the Pascalis Properties prior to the sale. This was approved by council on first reading. This is in addition to the $200K, and the repurchase of part of the property, not fully described, for an undisclosed amount, and the city funding a $7M five story parking garage.
An additional $2M is now being required by the preferred bidder from the city to close the sale on the remaining Pascalis Properties. That brings the sales proceeds to only $300k, less the repurchase of Warneke and more undescribed property for an undisclosed price, which will likely cause the bottom line of the sales contract to show a cost to the city rather than any proceeds, and the city will be required to build a $7M parking garage.
Before committing to sell (give away) millions of dollars of publicly owned property at a complete loss, AND committing to build a huge multi-million-dollar parking structure with ingress and egress on Newberry Street, Council MUST do it’s due diligence.
Council must fully consider these “irregularities”.
All bids made to purchase the Pascalis Properties, including the interest of the current tenants, should be studied and considered, and the option of re-listing the properties should not be excluded.
ALL six current bids must be fully reviewed and the full decision-making process must be made public in order to have any kind of transparency or public trust in this process.
