The speakers in last night’s meeting raised a number of important concerns:
concerns about the capacity of the aquifer to support this industry;
concerns over the ability of infrastructure to handle both the water supply and the waste generated;
concerns over the City’s decision to site a chicken processing plant, rather than sorely needed retail, grocery stores and basic services, for existing residents on the northside;
concerns over the City giving priority to the profit of a private enterprise over the needs of existing residents;
concerns over the people who would be employed at this facility;
concerns over the wisdom of placing a chicken processing plant at the main gateway to Aiken — an idea one speaker described as “out of touch” with the vision that City Council has been projecting for Aiken’s future.
Local resident Winona Specht, a retired SRS scientist with a background in environmental toxicology, pointed out that House of Raeford has an “abysmal record when it comes to violating environmental regulations and violating worker safety issues” and has been fined over $1.5 million for violations going back many years. She recounted several specifics from the past 4 years, alone, including two serious environmental violations and two serious workplace safety violations, along with price-fixing and anti-competitive practices.
A recurring theme among last night’s speakers was the lack of information provided by the City to citizens on a project that local leadership has been working on for months, if not longer. This same message has been echoing for the past two weeks in local social media threads. What do we know about Project Sunny, House of Raeford, and the chicken processing and slaughterhouse industry that our leaders have been working to bring to Aiken?
Some Basics
Chicken processing plants and slaughterhouses are, by nature, water-intensive, waste-producing, pollution-generating industries. They are also among the most dangerous workplaces in America. For this reason, the industry tends to site these facilities in areas where labor is exploitable, regulations weak, and water cheap. They find fertile ground in the South.
The realities of water depletion go largely unimagined in the southeastern US. We’ve yet to see the repercussions of unfettered water consumption that are being realized in the midwestern and the western US, where water depletion is starkly viewed in the disappearing rivers, lakes, ponds and well-water. A recent New York Times story, “America is Using Up its Groundwater Like There’s No Tomorrow,” reported that, in some areas:
“So much water is being pumped up that it is causing roads to buckle, foundations to crack and fissures to open in the earth. And around the country, rivers that relied on groundwater have become streams or trickles or memories.”
Working from numbers provided by Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Project Sunny will use about 34 million gallons of water per month, equal to about 15% of our surface water capacity. As if to reward such consumption, the City is incentivizing this company by offering to sell the water at a 50% discount. Similar discounts are being offered for wastewater discharge in a system already under stress to keep up with demand. As was recently pointed out in the Aiken Chronicles, Another Fifty-Percent Off Sale:
“In both cases, the more water used, and the more industrial wastewater produced, the lower the prices. No other City water and sewer customer even comes close to using this much water, or discharging that much wastewater. The Project Sunny facility, or any other major water user, could consume as much water in one year as the capacity of the City’s spring-fed Mason Branch reservoir. It also has the potential to put a further strain on the County’s Horse Creek Wastewater Plant, which the County is working to upgrade to meet a projected future capacity that seems to keep increasing.”
The question is — given a choice — why would leadership in a city and in a state that is still fortunate enough to have adequate drinking water supplies give the keys to our water to such a water-intensive industry, and at BOGO prices? What are they thinking?
Jobs, we’ve been told — 900 of them, with a starting pay of $18 per hour; just what the northside needs, we’ve been told.
There is also the matter of dollars brought to Aiken — a $183 million investment by House of Raeford and the $65k per month water bills to be paid by Project Sunny. The seduction from all these dollars requires we engage denial on the cost. The seduction depends on our ability to ignore the lessons being learned all over the US and the rest of the world: when the water’s gone, there is no amount of money going to refill those creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, wells and aquifers.
About Those Jobs
According to the City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, the starting pay is $18 per hour. Elsewhere, we’ve been told that $18 is the average pay, which could mean the starting pay may be only two-thirds of that amount. We don’t know. Accurate information is lacking.
Regarding the type of work in these facilities, according to OSHA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, these are some of the most dangerous jobs in the country. According to the Executive Summary in an OSHA file dated October 1, 2023, a publication whose stated purpose was to “to reduce injuries, illnesses and fatalities related to workers’ exposures in poultry processing facilities”:
“There are many serious safety and health hazards in the poultry processing industry. These hazards include exposure to high noise levels, dangerous equipment, slippery floors, musculoskeletal disorders, and hazardous chemicals (including ammonia that is used as a refrigerant). Musculoskeletal disorders are of particular concern and continue to be common among workers in the poultry processing industry. Employees can also be exposed to biological hazards associated with handling live birds or exposures to poultry feces and dusts which can increase their risk for many diseases.”
The work for the clean-up crew is no less hazardous, according to the earlier-mentioned October 2023 OSHA publication:
Click above text to enlarge.
According to this same OSHA publication, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that “the extent of the problem may be far greater than the elevated risk reported by employers and seen in the BLS data due to under-reporting.”
This reality is borne out through the accounts of workers over the past 50 years of poultry processing history and at least 35 years of House of Raeford history. While the rates of worker injuries and illness have fallen somewhat over the years, it is difficult to ascertain how much of this is due to improved processes; how much is due to the ripple effects from the defunding of OSHA and other oversight and regulatory agencies; how much is due to under-reporting by industry; and how much is due to under-reporting by employees, themselves, who understand that the fastest way to getting fired is to get sick or injured. As the headlines and the stories tell, poultry industry workers know better than to take time off for gastrointestinal infections, lost fingernails, amputations and broken bones.
This history and the records of this industry will be explored in some depth in Part Two of this story, as told in 35 years of House of Raeford headlines.
During a March 11, 2024, closed-door Executive Session, the company behind “Project Sunny” made an informational presentation to City Council that was described as “flowery” by two Council members.
Prior to the Executive Session, the fact that Project Sunny involved a House of Raeford chicken processing plant was not publicly disclosed within the City Council’s meeting agenda information package. This vital information only emerged after the closed-door session. The City chose not to properly disclose the true nature of its proposed water and sewer services ordinance written on behalf of House of Raeford, thus avoiding considerable citizen objections.
The six House of Raeford representatives who attended the Executive Session chose not to speak during the regular Council meeting, instead leaving City Council members and a few audience members to speak on their behalf.
The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (SC FOIA) has no exemptions to its Open Meetings laws for generic informational presentations from prospective businesses. As the House of Raeford presentation to Council should have been made in a public forum, the closed-door meeting arguably violated SC FOIA, at least in spirit.
by Don Moniak
(March 28th updated timeline: City Council announced on Monday, March 25th, that it would not proceed with a second public hearing on its Ordinance to provide water and sewer to House of Raeford until AFTER County Council acts on its Resolution to provide a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) tax incentive to the company. County Council still has two votes on that matter, the first tentatively scheduled for April 16th, the second for May 7th—which is also the date for a public hearing to be held by County Council.
May 3, 2024 update: On April 16, 2024, Aiken County Council did not move forward on its FILOT tax incentive Ordinance. More details of that event can be found inSewage Capacity Makes the News.)
Original article: March 25, 2024
As detailed in Executive Session Backgrounder, the open meetings clause of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows public bodies to hold closed-door Executive Sessions under certain conditions—but under no condition are closed-door meetings absolutely mandated. The State’s two highest elected officials have made it clear that if there is doubt about whether a meeting should be closed, then it should be open.
The backgrounder cites one example of Aiken City Council conducting a meeting behind closed doors on September 11, 2023, to hear an informational presentation from Aiken Corporation subcontractor McMillan Pazdan and Smith. The presentation by a publicly funded organization obviously should have been made in a public forum, and was arguably a violation of the state’s open meetings law.
Six months to the day after that questionable closed-door Executive Session, Aiken City Council appears to have met yet again in a closed-door Executive Session to hear a mere informational presentation that should have been presented in an open public forum.
Figure 1. Probable location of House of Raeford chicken processing plant. The first reported location was Verenes Park, which is due south of a higher income neighborhood and closer to the city’s water supply, Shaws Creek, as well as a proposed multi-million dollar Greenway bicycle and walking trail. (From Aiken County land database).
History of Project Sunny Closed-Door Sessions
This was the third Executive Session involving Project Sunny, which is now known to involve a House of Raeford chicken processing plant to be located near I-20’s Exit 22 (Figure 1 above); five miles north of Aiken city limits, but within the City of Aiken’s water and sewer district.
The North Carolina-based company, and Project Sunny “sponsor,” is seeking to access more than 30 million gallons per month from the City of Aiken’s surface water supply—approximately 45 percent of the City’s surface water capacity.
The company’s chicken processing plant will also produce similar amounts of wastewater that will enter into the City’s sewer system, ultimately to be processed at Aiken County’s Horse Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant—which is already undergoing capacity issues.
As reported in Another Fifty Percent Off Sale, Aiken City Council, so far, seems to be very willing to help incentivize the company’s project by providing considerable discounts on both water and sewer rates.
The first two closed-door meetings to discuss these incentives were held on November 27, 2023 and January 8, 2024. Project Sunny representatives were not listed as attendees at either of the two meetings.
The March 11th Closed-Door PR Presentation
On March 7, 2024, the City announced the third closed-door Executive Session, to be held at City Council’s March 11th meeting. The notice read:
“City Council will go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 30-4-70(a)(2) and (5) of the South Carolina Code for the discussion of negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements and the provision of City services to encourage the location of a new business.
Specifically, City Council will discuss the following: A discussion regarding the provision of City services to a new business to encourage the location of that business. This project is currently known as ‘Project Sunny.’” (1)
This past Thursday, March 21st, the City released the list of attendees at the March 11th closed-door session; it included “six representatives from Project Sunny.”
Based on the meeting minutes and video archive, at least a portion, if not the entirety, of this closed-door session did not involve a discussion of “contractual arrangements and provision of City Services” and at best only peripherally involved “provision of services to encourage the location of (the) business.”
Instead, a large portion of the closed-door meeting appeared to have involved an informational, public relations presentation by House of Raeford representatives to encourage Council members to accept the business; a presentation that should have been made in full public view.
To make matters worse, prior to the March 11th meeting, the City had declined to publicly disclose the Project Sunny company or the nature of its business. Only after the closed-door session did the City reveal that Project Sunny is a House of Raeford chicken processing plant. The City’s withholding of information from area residents proved to be an effective method to avoid public scrutiny during the first public hearing on its discounted water and sewer services ordinance written on behalf of the company.
The PR Presentation Aftermath
During the regular public meeting, which can be viewed here beginning at the 42:35 mark, not a single House of Raeford representative addressed the audience.
Instead, City Council members relayed the messages from the company’s presentation, with two members describing it as “flowery,” another describing it as “fluff,” and one describing millions of dollars of annual charitable giving from a company that is simultaneously seeking about a few million dollars a year in water and sewer rate discounts.
Councilwoman Gail Diggs initiated the testimonials, stating that:
“I had some questions. We all did. We had a good presentation tonight and we’re pretty pleased with the project, especially how they reach into the community and provide different programs for our young people.”
(The meeting minutes reflect that Ms. Diggs described the presentation as being held during the Executive Session, even though that was not stated specifically.)
Councilwoman Kay Brohl followed with a more glowing review, stating in part:
“Madame Mayor, may I add on to what Councilman Diggs had just said? This company, it’s unbelievable what they give back to the community. There was a high school prom that could they couldn’t afford, this company underwrote the whole prom. They’ve taken 75 kids to DC and paid for all of their expenses. They’re very involved with the Junior ROTC. They took some 26 kids on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor to Pearl Harbor. So far this year they’ve given six and a half million back to the community, that’s a pretty large commitment.”
Councilwoman Lessie Price was the first to describe the presentation as “flowery,” and added, in part, that:
“We had a great meeting, a very informative meeting with the owners. Once we passed the flowery things,some of the things that I personally was concerned about was theenvironmental things that, as Laverne (Justice) mentioned that you’ve got to be careful about. I believe based on my interaction that they were pretty upfront and honest with what they knew and could determine or predict environmental concerns…They were not afraid of answering honestly with these questions and often times you can tell that someone will give you all the flowers but the details are what we have to look at when it comes to environmental concerns.”
Councilwoman Price also expressed the desire to “visit some of their locations to see what is there. She said she would report her findings.”
Councilwoman Andrea Gregory spoke last. While she also used the word “flowery,” she later added the presentation involved “fluff” and asked for more environmental information before casting the only dissenting vote on the ordinance. She stated, in part, that:
“I want to thank Project Sunny personnel from House of Rayford for coming and presenting to us. I got tonight probably the bulk of the information that I have received since the beginning, a lot of it was very flowery. I would say a lot of fluff, good fluff, good community supporters. And that’s always nice but it has to do with the business aspect of the details.
At the end of the day, we have a very valuable resource that we need to make sure that we are upholding, and so that’s where bulk of questions are.
I would love to follow up with you guys to see what what is done for Batesburg, Monetta, and what specifically is done for West Columbia because I didn’t hear about any of those communities and they’re our neighbors….Council took a lot of time to to invest in the Brunswick tract and we need to preserve it, we need to make sure it’s clean. “
She finished her speech by adding:
“I appreciate your presentation with all the fluff but I want to know the specifics as far as the environment is as well.”
Figure 2: City Council members on a tour of a House of Raeford chicken processing facility in North Carolina. Puddles of water can be seen in the photo, part of the process of keeping the facility clean and sanitized that reflects part of the need for the company’s high demand for city water. Chicken parts, blood, and other product line waste must be washed into the facility’s wastewater plant. Photo by Bill Taylor posted to Facebook.
The Chicken Plant PR Trip
Less than two weeks later, Councilwomen Diggs, Brohl, and Price did visit a House of Raeford chicken processing facility in North Carolina, along with State Representative Bill Taylor (and others who have yet to be identified).
Representative Taylor, who also worked for decades as a “media consultant,” was the first to publicize the trip by posting a glowing review on a newly created Facebook group page created to address project issues. The posting included a photo of the Raeford family (Figure 3 below), workers in the break room, the chicken drumsticks processing line (Figure 2 above), and a photo of the building exterior. According to Taylor, there were “no feathers and no odor” at the plant.
Because the tour only involved a minority of City Council, the City did not have to be announced in advance. But a few questions that immediately arise about the fact-finding public relations tour include:
Who decided on which three Council members would attend?
Was Councilwoman Gregory, the only Council member to express concerns and a desire to learn more about local facilities before casting the lone dissenting vote on March 11th, invited on the tour?
Why has Councilwoman Price, who routinely champions “community meetings” on controversial issues, not yet advocated such a meeting before any tours and final votes, in order to gather community input and questions?
Commentary
As the timeline (3) for Project Sunny shows, rollout of the House of Raeford project has had all the markings of a typical large economic development project vigorously pursued by local government and involving government subsidies: a decision is made, local officials help mount a public relations effort on behalf of developers, and then citizens are offered heavily filtered information. The closed-door presentation and subsequent North Carolina chicken plant tour had all the markings of the elitist, invitation-only, Project Pascalis “Influencer Meetings.”
For this project, people were informed there was a Project Sunny, and that it would involve access to massive amounts of city water. Less emphasized by city government was the copious amounts of sewerage production.
In this latest instance, City officials first attempted to pass a more generic “water guzzler” ordinance to favorably amend water and sewer rates for any high-volume customers—without mentioning Project Sunny by name.
After that effort ran into stiff community resistance, the City pivoted to an ordinance to offer water and sewer services and discounted rates only to the potential Project Sunny customer.
Officials then knowingly withheld vital information about the true nature of Project Sunny until after a closed-door session to hear the “flowery,” “fluffy” presentation by House of Raeford representatives, held prior to the announced public hearing. In doing so, City Council avoided, for the first public hearing, the inevitable objections to a large chicken processing plant to be located within a quarter mile of community residents who have no vote, and often no voice, in City business.
The City has also has yet to announce the exact location of the business to which it intends to provide water and sewer service, a remarkable departure from normal city policies and planning procedures.
For its part, The House of Raeford opted only to speak to Council behind closed doors, but not to the community, and allowed City Council members to act as the company’s public relations surrogates.
In doing so, all but one Council member devoted the bulk of their efforts to lauding the company’s community profile instead of describing their corporate, environmental, and safety record. In fact, no evidence exists that Council has yet conducted any real due diligence on the company’s record.
The fundamental role of government is to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, not to promote corporate projects based on the company’s public relations literature. To date, Aiken City Council, as well its counterpart in the County, has yet to show any evidence of its primary role, but has put forward ample evidence of its assumed role of chicken plant project promotion.
Figure 3: Councilwoman Gail Diggs and Kay Brohl viewing a portrait of the Raeford Family. Photo by Bill Taylor posted to Facebook.
Footnotes:
(1) The full text of the cited SC FOIA public meeting exemptions are as follows:
SC 30-4-70(2): Discussion of negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements and proposed sale or purchase of property, the receipt of legal advice where the legal advice relates to a pending, threatened, or potential claim or other matters covered by the attorney-client privilege, settlement of legal claims, or the position of the public agency in other adversary situations involving the assertion against the agency of a claim.
SC 30-4-70(5): Discussion of matters relating to the proposed location, expansion, or the provision of services encouraging location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body.
(2) In a parallel effort, Aiken County Council has proposed a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) resolution to negotiate a tax break to House of Raeford.. The ordinance authorizing a FILOT agreement— which is now standard for larger projects—with the Project Sunny “sponsor” has already been approved, “in title only,” during the First Reading of the Ordinance (Figure 3).
Figures 4 and 5. Title of Resolution and Body of Resolution approved on First Reading on February 20th.
On March 19th, in response to public comment by Aiken County resident Vicki Simons, Chairman Gary Bunker announced the second reading is tentatively planned for April 16th; and the public hearing and third reading is scheduled for May 7th.
Aslo on March 19th, nine area residents spoke to Council about the project. Their speeches can be heard around the 30 and 42 minute marks, and after the 56 minute mark, on this audio recording of the meeting.
(3) Summary of the Timeline of Project Sunny.
Unknown date through November 2023. The the Western South Carolina Economic Development Partnership secretly negotiated, as per normal modern economic development procedures, with The House of Raeford to locate a new chicken processing plant in Aiken County.
November 27, 2023: Aiken City Council held a closed-door Executive Session to discuss Project Sunny. The location was identified as Verenes Industrial Park. Neither the company nor the nature of its business was identified.
January 8, 2024; Aiken City Council held a second closed-door Executive Session to discuss providing city water and sewer services for Project Sunny. Verenes Park was not identified as the location, and neither the name of the company nor the nature of its business was revealed.
January 22, 2024: Aiken City Council held the FIrst Reading of the Public Hearing for an ordinance to amend city water and sewer rates to provide major discounts to any business or industry that used more than 15 million galllons per month of city water. The ordinance passed unanimously, with only one citizen asking questions during the public comment period. Additional information known at that time is available in The Water Guzzler Ordinance.
February 13, 2024: Aiken City Council removed the Second Reading of the Public Hearing from its meeting agenda, citing citizen concerns and questions Three area residents still expressed concerns and questions about the proposal during the nonagenda public comment period.
February 20, 2024: Aiken County Council voted to unanimously approve, on its first reading, a proposed resolution (Figure 4 above) to authorize execution of Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) for the “sponsor” of Project Sunny. New information was provided in the draft resolution that the project involved a potential $185 million investment; but it did not identify the project location, the name of the company, the nature of its business, nor the potential number of jobs.
Aiken County Council later entered into closed-door Executive Session to discuss three economic development projects, of which one was likely to be Project Sunny.
March 7, 2024: The City of Aiken released the agenda for the March 13th Aiken City Council meeting, and announced an Executive Session regarding Project Sunny. The agenda included a new ordinance to provide discounted water and sewer rates, but only for a single customer that was only identified as Project Sunny. The potential number of jobs, 900, was identified; but not the investment amount provided in the proposed County ordinance, the location, the name of the company, or the nature of its business.
Morning of March 13, 2024; Aiken Chronicles published Another 50 percent Off Sale detailing the known status of Project Sunny. City Council was emailed a link to the article and a series of questions, including whether the project was a chicken processing plant similar to that in West Columbia.
Evening of March 13, 2024: Prior to its regular meeting, Aiken City Council held a one-hour long closed-door Executive Session to discuss Project Sunny. Attending the session were six representatives from “Project Sunny” who provided Council with a presentation about the company.
During the regular meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh disclosed that the Project Sunny company was The House of Raeford and the nature of the business was a chicken processing plant—information not provided prior to the meeting. After some discussion, Council voted 6-1 to approve the First Reading of the Ordinance, with Councilwoman Andrea Gregory casting the sole vote of dissent.
March 19, 2024: Eight Aiken County citizens traveled to Aiken County Council’s regular meeting to express their strong concerns about the project during the period allotted for public comment on nonagenda items. One citizen traveled to the meeting to support the project.
Week of March 18th: Three members of City Council joined an entourage to view a House of Raeford chicken processing plant in North Carolina.
March 21, 2024. The City of Aiken released the agenda for Aiken City Council’s March 24th meeting. The Project Sunny water subsidy ordinance was not on the agenda.
April 8, 2024: Tentative date of Aiken City Council’s Second Reading of the Public Hearing for the ordinance to provide House of Raeford with discounted prices on more than 30 million gallons of month of city water, as well as acceptance of similarly high levels of wastewater into the city’s sewer system.
April 16, 2024: Tentative date of Aiken County Council’s Second Reading of its Resolution to execute a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) agreement with House of Raeford. If the City does not approve the water and sewer provision ordinance, the County is unlikely to proceed.
May 7, 2024: Tentative date of Aiken County Council’s Public Hearing on the Project Sunny FILOT Resolution, followed by a vote on the Third Reading.
(Post Approval: Wastewater and air permitting processes with SC Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). )
by Don Moniak March 11, 2024 (Updated March 12, 2024. As suggested in this story yesterday, Project Sunny is indeed a chicken processing plant. As reported by WFXG-Fox News reporter Abby Bradshaw, House of Raeford plans to locate a new plant in Aiken at Verenes Industrial Park. The project still has two public hearings remaining, one Aiken City Council in two weeks and one with Aiken County Council sometime in April.)
Summary
A City of Aiken attempt to amend its water and sewer rate ordinance to provide radical discounts for an unidentified company in an unidentified industry ran into flak from City residents in early February 2024. As a result, Aiken City Council took the ordinance off its meeting agenda, ostensibly due to citizen questions and concerns.
Throughout this time City Council, with the blessing of the City Attorney, refused to divulge any information about plant location, job creation, company investments, or environmental impacts.
One month later, the City has pivoted by abandoning the water and sewer rate amendment and opting for a new, reformulated ordinance that has more palatable language, but very similar results—discounts of 50 percent instead of 67 percent that disincentivize water conservation.
The latest effort coincides with Aiken County Council’s process, now two-thirds complete, for passing an ordinance providing a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) arrangement for what is now known to be the same unidentified company in an unidentified industry.
Between the two processes, some information regarding economic benefits has emerged that City Council has asserted, just six weeks ago, must remain confidential: investment, location, and job creation. Information about any negative impacts remains confidential.
The new details about jobs, combined with high water use and sewage production and the presence of an extensive local network of poultry producers in the northeast portion of the county and neighboring Lexington County, suggests the possibility of another potential customer—a labor intensive chicken processing plant that requires high volumes of water and wastewater discharge capacity.
(The new ordinance will face its First Reading of the Public Hearing (1) for the replacement ordinance will take place tonight’s City Council meeting, which begins at 7 p.m. at City Municipal Building, 111 Chesterfield Street. A closed-door, Executive Session regarding Project Sunny is also planned prior to the Regular Meeting.)
Details
The City’s Water and Sewer Rate Incentives
As reported in The Water Guzzler Ordinance, on January 22, 2024, Aiken City Council moved one step forward towards amending its water and sewer rate ordinance in order to provide major discounts to any commercial customer outside of the city limits. At the time, Council claimed it was restricted from providing any details on the “potential customer” for whom the amendment was clearly being tailored.
The amended water rate ordinance proposed discount rates for customers that consumed at least 15 million gallons per month from the City of Aiken’s Northside water supply, and a deeper discount—up to 67 percent—if a customer used more than 30 million gallons per month. The same thresholds and similar rate discounts held true for wastewater discharge. In both cases, the more water used, and the more industrial wastewater produced, the lower the prices.
No other City water and sewer customer even comes close to using this much water, or discharging that much wastewater. The Project Sunny facility, or any other major water user, could consume as much water in one year as the capacity of the City’s spring-fed Mason Branch reservoir. It also has the potential to put a further strain on the County’s Horse Creek Wastewater Plant, which the County is working to upgrade to meet a projected future capacity that seems to keep increasing.
At its January 22nd meeting, only one potential user, referred to only as “the customer,” was identified. Although “the customer” appeared to have a strong link to a Western South Carolina Economic Development Partnership economic development effort for the City’s Verenes Industrial park, described only as “Project Sunny,” Aiken City Council refused to acknowledge the connection—a stonewalling that was encouraged by the City Attorney.
The rate amendment effort stalled after considerable concerns, questions, and outright opposition arose regarding both fairness to other customers and the impact on the water system and supply from a any water guzzling business.
After receiving numerous questions and complaints, City Council took the amended water and sewer rate ordinance off of its February 12, 2024 meeting agenda. Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem Ed Girardeau stated the reason was due to citizen concerns and questions, and a resulting need to consult with experts. He stated that:
“It has been recommended that we amend the agenda to continue item number six under old business to a future meeting. I know there’s a lot of interest here tonight, it’s the change in the water rate for a bigger industry. This week we’ve received a lot of questions, and they are good questions quite frankly. Some of them think you think you know the answer to, and some of them you don’t know the answer to. We’ve decided to bring in some experts and get some help to give us a little bit of background as we go forward.”
In spite of the deferral of the second public hearing, three citizens (1) still spoke up to raise concerns and objections to the ordinance. The issues were similar to those described in Water Welfare on Tap in City Council: water is a renewable, but finite resource; Aiken’s water supply is threatened by the proposed ordinance; the ordinance disincentives conservation; the discounts are unfair to existing residential and commercial users; the incentives will result in lost revenues that could be used for infrastructure maintenance; Aiken should not trade its water resources for unknown economic benefits.
Figure 1: Supporting memorandum for new water and sewer rate discounts for “Project Sunny.”
Meet the New Discounts, Almost the Same as old Discounts.
If City Council sought anything more than expert legal and policy advice, it is certainly not evident in its latest Project Sunny incentives drive.
Instead of continuing with the troubled amended water and sewer rate ordinance, the City of Aiken has pivoted to a new strategy—abandoning its rate ordinance amendment, and substituting it with an ordinance for a specific agreement with the single unidentified company in an unidentified industry.
In doing so, the City revealed information that just six weeks ago it claimed was confidential. The supporting memorandum (Figure 1) for the lightly modified approach indirectly describes the location (Verenes Industrial Park) by naming the company as “Project Sunny.” The memo also identifies an economic benefit of 900 jobs at a starting wage of $18 per hour and benefits; but not the economic investment itself; estimated by Aiken County to be $185 million.
The difference between the two approaches is minimal—a 50 percent discount for any water consumption above 15 million gallons per month. The previous offer ranged from 60 to 67 percent. (Table 1) In both scenarios, the more water use, the lower the price; disincentivizing water conservation.
Alongside the water rate discounts, the City is also offering discounts on wastewater discharges into the City’s sewer system—that eventually are treated by the Horse Creek Plant—that range from 30 to 45 percent. The discount proposed in the abandoned water and sewer rate ordinance was 58 percent. As with water use, more wastewater production means lower costs for the company; disincentivizing any wastewater reduction efforts.
Water Service
1/22/24 Proposed Rate per 750 gallons
3/11/24 Proposed Rate per 750 gallons
Out-of-Town Commercial Rate
15-30 Million Gallons/Month
$1.31
$1.64
$3.27
> 30 Million Gallons/Month
$1.07
$1.64
$3.27
Monthly Bill 30M Gallons
$43,610
$65,616
$130,810
% Discount 30M Gallons
67 percent
50 percent
N/A.
Table 1: Proposed Water Consumption rates for unidentified Project Sunny, The differences in rate discounts h are not identified are not identified in the City Manager’s supporting memorandum for the latest ordinance.
“The Sponsor;” Aiken County’s Parallel Project Sunny Process
The City is also proceeding in tandem with Aiken County Council, which has already tentatively approved a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) agreement with the Project Sunny company, only referred to in the County ordinance as “the sponsor.” The process is two-thirds complete, as Council approved the FILOT agreement during its Second Reading of the Ordinance in early February. All that is left is a Public Hearing, probably to be held in April once the City finishes its incentives business.
In the process, another detail emerged that City Council originally refused to disclose; that the Project Sunny “sponsor” company intends to invest up to $185 million over a thirteen-year period. Yet, the County inexplicably did not divulge the job creation numbers, opting only to state that the FILOT incentive agreement required that 125 jobs be created in the first four years of operation.
Both the City and the County predictably refuse to divulge the name of the company for fear of jeopardizing the deal and/or breaking any existing nondisclosure agreements. However, both entities also refuse to identify even the the industry that is involved, or any other pertinent information regarding potential adverse impacts.
The situation is both similar and dissimilar to Project Sabal. As reported in Is Google Coming to Aiken County, Aiken County Council passed a FILOT ordinance for an unidentified company hiding behind a another shadowy, shell holding company; another business with a tremendous appetite for water and a propensity for enormous wastewater production.
Although the County’s Project Sabal ordinance identified investment benefits while withholding environmental costs; it did at least name the industry: water intensive, hi-tech data storage centers.
The similar, but slightly different, Project Sunny approval process was subjected to objections and questioning by two county residents during the open public comment period at County Council’s March 5th public meeting; who reside less than six miles north of the proposed Project Sunny,
During a three-minute speech to Council, Vicki Simons cited the intent of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act to promote openness in government; the State Constitution’s provision that “all political power is vested and derived from the people only,” and the fact that “Aiken County Voters are at the top of Aiken County’s 2024 Organizational Chart, meaning that we are your bosses”
She then described a plant in Saluda County , one that the Western Carolina Economic Development Partnership touts in its promotional materials, with serious wastewater issues:
“An August 17, 2023, article in The State newspaper reported a pet food plant (SC Pet Solutions) was polluting a popular clear-running creek into a slimy, foul-smelling stream with unsafe levels of bacteria. This was causing Saluda County residents to be distraught. We absolutely must not have a repeat of this situation in Aiken County!”
She concluded by saying:
“Because this is our backyard, Aiken County voters and taxpayers deserve to know regarding ‘Project Sunny:’
the true name of the company;
the nature of the proposed business;
why it could consume more than 15 million gallons of water per month;
and what effect this company’s business will have on air and water quality in our county.
It is imperative that before Council has any further ‘readings’ or a Public Hearing on ‘Project Sunny,’ that Council reveals the company name, the nature and scope of the business, and its true projected impact on natural resources.”
Do you have any questions?”
In typical fashion, no County Council member commented or asked a question.
Michael Simons then raised further objections, asking in part:
“What kind of business would require having access to that much water? It’s unheard of here in Aiken County. Why would we want to have a business in our county that requires such an amount?”
Again, there were no answers, no comments, no questions.
What industry is associated with Project Sunny? Unlike the Sage Mill Industrial Park, one likely location (Figure 2) in Verenes Industrial Park is only a third of a mile from numerous residents along Shiloh Church Road, an area that has also experienced steady residential growth; where another large subdivision is planned near Shiloh Church and Highway 19. North.
As reported in The Water Guzzler Ordinance, two water intensive industries are hi-tech data centers and beverage producers.
Given the combined information provided by the County and City, a third possibility is a chicken processing plant. The meat processing and packing industry remains a labor-intensive industry that requires high volumes of water and produces high volumes of wastewater.
One example can be found about fifty miles away from Aiken. According to a November 2017 article in The State newspaper, the long-embattled, odorous House of Raeford chicken processing plant in West Columbia (Figure 3), which at that time had about 800 employees—just 100 fewer than the projections for Project Sunny—was a major water user:
“The plant is also a moneymaker for West Columbia because processing chickens for supermarkets uses lots of water. City officials say the plant paid $1.2 million for water last year, about 10 percent of the city’s utility revenue.”
West Columbia’s existing water rate for in-town commercial customers is currently $3.70 per thousand gallons—considerably higher than that proposed for Project Sunny. Generating a $1.2 million dollar water bill would require approximately 324 million gallons per year—close to 30 million gallons per month.
Another factor to consider is the considerable network of poultry producers in north central Aiken County and neighboring Lexington County. Any chicken processing plant would have a local supply, although it would be competing with other area processors for that supply.
Whether it is a chicken processor, beverage producer, data center, or other industry, Aiken County residents have the right to know what water intensive, waste producing, and possibly odor emitting industry is being incentivized by their elected officials through tax incentives and discounted water and sewage service and tax incentives to locate here.
The City of Aiken, Aiken County, and the Economic Partnership group could reveal the Project Sunny industry without revealing the company; just as it did with Project Sabal. They just choose not to, putting the confidentiality demands of the “sponsor” over the concerns of county residents.
Figure 3: The House of Raeford Plant in West Columbia.
Figure 3: The House of Raeford Chicken Processing Plant in West Columbia. Although area residents complain about powerful odors from the plant, it remains a major employer and West Columbia water customer; there are no rumors or reports of it moving. However, a similar, more modern plant is a possiblity in Aiken County.
Footnotes:
(1) Technically, a City of Aiken public hearing consists of two “readings.” The proper phrasing is “First Reading of the Public Hearing,” followed by “Second Reading of the Public Hearing.”
In contrast, Aiken County conducts three readings for each new ordinance, but only one public hearing.
(2) From the Feburary 12, 2024 Aiken City Council meeting minutes:
Laura Bagwell.
Laura Bagwell stated she wanted to speak about the item that was removed from the agenda. She said she wanted to talk about why it is a bad idea to create a discount water rate for major commercial and industrial users. The science for this region does not support that idea. The city’s water comes from both ground water and surface water. These are renewable resources, but they are not unlimited resources.
Recent studies show that if this region continues to grow at a rapid pace, and when we experience another drought like 2002 that we are going to experience real shortages in ground water and surface water. This is likely to happen in the next two generations. Shaws Creek, which supplies 20% of our water, may have insufficient volumes for one or two months. Projections indicate that Groundwater levels may drop below the top of the aquifer near Shaws Creek. This poses a real risk of the ground sinking, dry wells and maybe permanent irreversible damage to our aquifer.
The new water treatment plant will not matter. It is like when a check account is overdrawn, it does not matter if you still have checks. The science is telling us that our water resources could soon be stretched very thin.
Financially this is a losing proposition. She asked if the city had really analyzed the true cost of supplying cheap water for big users. She noted that residential rates go up and up as more water is used. Our existing commercial rates already include a provision for a price break with increased use. In other words, the city already rewards commercial users when they use more water and now decide to give them an even bigger price break. She asked if this would be a permanent discount for the operational life span of this mystery business. She asked how many millions of dollars will the city miss out on by promising cheap water in exchange for coming here.
She asked how many permanent full time jobs will the new business provide. How can Council guarantee that this corporate give away will not place an additional burden on regular water customers who have already endured 7 rate increases in 14 years. She noted that the city has better tools to attract investment—infrastructure lines, tax breaks, a discount rate that sunsets, ideas but it is not permanent. Don’t use incentives to be over allocated resources.
Peter Kleinhenz.
Peter Kleinhenz, Executive Director of the Aiken Land Conservancy, stated the Land Trust’s mission is to serve Aiken’s character for present and future generations through advocacy and land protection. He said he was present to speak about the proposed tier water rate ordinance that Laura Bagwell spoke about. This ordinance, which as proposed incentivizes industrial and commercial development by offering reduced water rates seems, to attract both, presumably to foster greater economic development to our community.
He said he decided to look at what some of the fastest growing cities in South Carolina were doing. Charleston, Hilton Head, Columbia, Rock Hill and Myrtle Beach all charge industrial and commercial users more for increased water usage. The more water you use, the more you pay. They all do the opposite of what is being proposed. No one would argue that those communities are not economically viable for attracting development.
However, those communities likely understand that safeguarding a finite resource such as water avoids significant taxpayer incurred costs down the road. There are plenty of examples of water depletion leading to avoidable costs that taxpayers may get stuck with, including here in the Southeastern United States. Aiken Land Conservancy is pro-growth.
However, protecting one of Aiken’s most important natural resources from exploitive use is more important than that. We believe there are better means with which to attract growth the City of Aiken wants to see that does not involve the depletion of a resource that could become scarce and that everyone of us depends upon.
Meg Adams.
Meg Adams stated she wanted to provide her opinion from the perspective of someone who works in a local law firm that specializes in commercial transactions, specifically commercial real estate. She said she works every day in development. She said she is pro-development and understands the need for it, but she also understands the need for sustainable development.
She said she is also a conservationist. She said she had worked with a local non-profit water conservation agency, for about 7 years. She said she was here to tell Council there is a better solution to this than the major water rate tier for large water users. She said she understood the need to bring in new industry and to provide incentives for new businesses to come, and understands the need to bring in new jobs, but not giving away a natural resource that is already under extreme threat.
She noted this is not just environmentalists screaming that we need to hug more trees. The State of South Carolina has been under threat as far as our water resources for a long time. This is really a nation-wide issue. Giving away a resource that is already highly threatened is not a good idea. She said she just wanted to point out a few things that she found a little humorous when she was reading through the proposed ordinance as well as scanning through some stuff on the city’s website as far as water utilities go.
The city’s website says that water services provided by the city and residential rates are structured to encourage conservation and the more water one uses the higher the cost. She asked why this standard does not apply to commercial users. Commercial users already have a discount.
She asked if we would give them a second discount to use even more water, to use even more of the resource that is already under threat. It incentivizes them to use more water. She asked why the same standard did not apply to commercial users as to residential users. Also, on the city’s website and on the water bill is a list of ways for residential users to conserve water. There are several other things she could point out.
