Category Archives: Elections

Elections

Online Forum: Aiken City Council District 6 Republican Primary

8 Comments

On July 25, 2025, the Aiken Chronicles submitted questions on the following eight topics as part of an online forum for the two candidates, Barbara Morgan and Clayton Clarkson, vying in the August 2025 Republican primary for Aiken City Council District 6. Ms. Morgan’s responses are provided below. Mr. Clarkson did not respond. 

The written online forum gives candidates and citizens time for thoughtful reflection on issues of concern to local residents. The hope is to contribute toward a better-informed electorate, an enthusiastic voter turnout, and a healthier democracy

REGARDING CONSTITUENCY SERVICE

How would you engage with constituents, both to inform, be informed, and to advocate on their behalf when necessary and appropriate?

How would you ensure that Citizens of Aiken remain at the top of the City’s Organizational Chart?

Barbara Morgan: Constituent service begins with transparency and accountability. I believe residents deserve to be informed about what their government is doing and to have meaningful ways to make their voices heard. That means ensuring clear, accessible communication from the city and demanding openness in how decisions are made. I will advocate for more cooperative communication across departments and for making public information easier to access and understand. The people of Aiken should always come first, and I will work to ensure our government reflects that—from how we plan infrastructure to how we spend public dollars.

_______________________

REGARDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE II. CITY COUNCIL

Are you familiar with Chapter 2, Article II of the City Code, which addresses the roles and powers of the City Council? 

Are there any provisions in the code that need amending?  

Barbara Morgan: Yes, I am familiar with the provisions in Chapter 2, Article II of the City Code. The framework is solid, but I believe regular review helps ensure accountability. One potential area for improvement is clearer language around public input, engagement and oversight. Strengthening transparency and avoiding confusion about the Council’s responsibilities benefits everyone.

_______________________

REGARDING CHAPTER 2. ARTICLE IV. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES

Each Council member can appoint (or reappoint) an individual to each City Board, Commission, and Committee. These entities are responsible for helping to guide city policies. 

What approach would you take to making appointments?

 What criteria should a citizen have for serving on any Board, Commission, or Committee? 

Barbara Morgan: Appointments should be based on merit and service, not politics. I will seek individuals with relevant experience, diverse perspectives, and a commitment to improving our community. Citizens who serve should be prepared, engaged, and willing to ask hard questions to make these bodies stronger. I also believe we should improve outreach so that more residents are aware of these opportunities and how to get involved.

_______________________

REGARDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE V, DIVISION 3. LEGAL SERVICES

City code allows for two options for the legal department: all in-house or a mix of inhouse and outside, contracted counsel. 

Are you familiar with these options? 

Which of the two choices would you prefer; or should a new structure be codified? 

Barbara Morgan: I am familiar with both in-house and hybrid legal models. Each has its strengths. I support a blended approach that ensures consistent legal advice while allowing for outside expertise when appropriate. I would also support clarifying when and how outside counsel is used so the public can better understand the city’s legal strategy and costs. We must insist on strict adherence to the rules of professional conduct with no actual or perceived  conflicts of interest so  that our citizens receive the most principled and expert legal guidance possible. 

_______________________

REGARDING MEGA PROJECTS

What are some of the lessons learned from Project Pascalis? 

Barbara Morgan: One of the key lessons is the importance of public trust. The problem was not vision but process. Major initiatives must involve the public early and often, with full disclosure  at every step and discernable response to feedback. We need stronger oversight, clearer communication, and a renewed commitment to open government when considering any large-scale project.

_______________________

REGARDING PROPERTY SALES AND PURCHASES

Aiken City Council approved the $9.6 million in bonds for the purchase of the Project Pascalis properties. City Council also sold two properties, the Laurens Street Building (now SRP) and the Mattie Hall property, to investors who turned around and made $500,000 and $130,000, respectively. 

What approaches to property sales and purchases would you advocate, if any? 

Barbara Morgan: City-owned properties are public resources and should be treated as such. I support requiring competitive bidding processes, full public disclosure, and careful financial analysis before any sale or purchase. These decisions must be strategic and based on long-term benefit to the community, not short-term deals that leave taxpayers footing the bill.

_______________________

REGARDING WATER, SEWER, AND STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE

The City of Aiken will have $28 million from the latest Capital Project Sales Tax dedicated to Sewer and Water System ”improvements.” This could mean expansion as well as maintenance.

The City has been mostly expanding the past several years, especially up around Exit 22. For example, it is also spending $3.5 million of plutonium settlement funds on a Northside Sewer Lift Station that will largely service the Shiloh Church Road and Exit 18 areas. 

What approach do you advocate for prioritizing spending on expansion of new water/sewer infrastructure vs maintenance of existing infrastructure?

Barbara Morgan: We must prioritize maintenance before expansion. Growth should not come at the expense of long-neglected systems in existing neighborhoods.  You can’t have growth of any type without functioning infrastructure.  I support a thorough assessment of current needs and a plan to address them using available funding. Every resident deserves reliable services, regardless of what part of the city they live in.

_______________________

REGARDING MORATORIUMS ON DEVELOPMENT

Numerous jurisdictions (i.e. Mount Pleasant, Fort Mill, Greenville County, Kershaw County, and North Augusta) have implemented temporary moratoriums on various developments 

Would you advocate for a temporary moratorium on development, at least until the new Unified Development Ordinance goes into effect?

Barbara Morgan: I would give serious consideration to a temporary and targeted  moratorium on certain  developments  until the new Unified Development Ordinance is in place. A pause would give us time to ensure that future projects reflect updated rules, better infrastructure planning, and clearer expectations. Growth should serve the people of Aiken, not outpace the community’s ability to manage it.

_________________

About this Primary

Only the District 6 race will feature a primary; between Republican candidates Barbara Morgan and Clayton Clarkson.

Early Voting for the Repubican primary for Aiken City Council District 6 began on July 28 and runs through Friday, August 8; at the County Administration Building at 1930 University Parkway. The primary election will be held on Tuesday, August 12, 2025.

About the Republican Primary Candidates

Barbara Morgan served as the Solicitor (equivalent to a District Attorney) for the Second Circuit– Aiken, Barnwell, and Bamberg Counties– from 1990 to 2009; having been elected four times in total. Most recently she has served on the City’s Design Review Board after being appointed by Councilwoman Andrea Gregory in February 2024. For more information, visit her Facebook page and website. 

Clayton Clarkson has served as Councilwoman Kay Brohl’s appointee on the City’s Planning Commission since February 2020. For more information, visit his Facebook page and profile on Aiken2025.com.

The above primary info is sourced from Don Moniak’s recent article, Update to Local Politics and Planning 2025.

City Government, Elections, Planning

Update to Local Politics and Planning 2025

3 Comments

(An update on City Elections and the rewrite of the City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance; reported in Local Politics and Planning: 2025.)

by Don Moniak
July 25, 2025

Aiken City Council Election Campaigns Begin

Aiken City Council will have a different look in 2026.

Municipal elections are scheduled for November 4, 2025. Four City Council seats are open this year: Districts 2, 4, 5, and 6.

Aiken2025, a newly formed, nonpartisan group whose goal is to raise awareness of the elections, promote a set of values for candidates, and create a forum for candidates, has published this map of the electoral districts.

Councilman Ed Girardeau (District 4), Councilwoman Andrea Gregory, (District 5) and Councilman Ed Woltz (District 6) all opted not to seek reelection. Councilwoman Lessie Price (District 2) will be the only incumbent on the ballot in November. Unless a strong challenger emerges via petition or write-in ballot, she will be reelected.

The Primary

Only the District 6 race will feature a primary; between Republican candidates Barbara Morgan and Clayton Clarkson.

Ms. Morgan served as the Solicitor (equivalent to a District Attorney) for the Second Circuit– Aiken, Barnwell, and Bamberg Counties– from 1990 to 2009; having been elected four times in total. Most recently she has served on the City’s Design Review Board after being appointed by Councilwoman Andrea Gregory in February 2024. For more information, visit her Facebook page and website.

Clayton Clarkson has served as Councilwoman Kay Brohl’s appointee on the City’s Planning Commission since February 2020. For more information, visit his Facebook page and profile on Aiken2025.com.

Candidates in the General Election

Five candidates will only appear on the general election ballot.

Jacob Ellis is running as the Democrat for the District 4 seat. He has been a regular participating attendee at Council meetings, and ran as a write-in candidate in 2021. For more information see his Facebook page and website.

Peter Messina is running as the Republican for the District 4 seat; He has served as Councilwoman Andrea Gregory’s appointee to the Planning Commission since February of 2021. For more information see his profile at Aiken2025.com.

Braylen Waldo is running as the Democrat for the District 5 seat. He is a newcomer to city politics. For more information see his Facebook page.

Kent Cubbage is running as the Republican for the District 5 seat. He served on the City’s Planning Commission from 2013 to 2017. For more information, see his profile at Aiken2025.com.

Lisa Smith is running for the District 6 seat as a Democrat. In 2022, she was a leader in the Do It Right Alliance movement that defeated Project Pascalis; and has continued in an activist role in city politics. She will face the winner of the August 12th primary between Clarkson and Morgan.

The remaining schedule of the elections is as follows:

July 28 to August 8: Early voting for primary
August 12: District 6 Primary.
August 21: Closing of entries for nomination by petition. 
November 4: Election Day.

Status of the Rewrite of the City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance

The next City Council will be responsible for helping to craft and ultimately approve a rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance, which has been retitled as the “Unified Development Ordinance” (UDO). The UDO will govern all future development for the foreseeable future; it will help determine what Aiken will look like in the coming decades.

In January 2024, the City of Aiken issued a Request for Qualifications for a consultant to facilitate a rewriting of the Zoning Ordinance. In July 2024, the Chicago-based firm of Houseal and Lavigne was chosen by a committee of four city employees–City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Assistant City Manager Mary Tilton, Planning Department Director Marya Moultrie, and Planner Richard Cowick. City Council had no input on the selection process; it only validated the final choice.

Information on the bids was recently obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Three firms submitted bids: Chicago-based Houseal and Lavigne, Charleston and Kansas City-based White Smith Cousino, and Charlotte-based Freese and Nichols.

The latter only submitted a four-page skeletal bid and received the lowest collective grade of 311 out of 400 points. Their monetary bid was $179,000.

According to the FOIA response, White Smith Cousino worked as consultants during preparation of the City’s 2017-2027 Comprehensive Plan. The firm’s bid and their website indicates widespread experience with communities across the Southeast.

Their 38-page submittal contained a detailed schedule and breakdown of tasks for completing the job; including a commitment of 160 hours of “stakeholder and public engagement.” They also made reference to the importance of historic preservation.

Houseal and Lavigne has more limited experience in the Southeast, and had no previous experience with Aiken. Their 26-page submittal contained no details of the tasks at hand; it was predominantly a review of the firm’s background. No reference was made to historic preservation issues.

The City awarded the job to Houseal and Lavigne for $208,000. Planning Director Moultrie and Planner Cowick both gave the firm’s proposal a perfect grade of 100.

Overall, White Smith Cousino scored a collective numeric grade of 339 out of 400; whereas Houseal and Lavigne scored a 379. (see review files in FOIA response).

The monetary bid by White Smith Cousino is unknown because City officials claim it cannot be found and thus was not part of the FOIA response.

A Rocky Start

To date, Houseal and Lavigne has experienced a rocky start, largely due to the minimal amount of public involvement prior to their first presentations on initial recommendations.

The firm and the Planning Department hosted a single, two-hour long, informational public drop-in session at the City Municipal Building on a cold rainy evening this past February. It only attracted 26 people. No similar session was held on the Southside of Aiken.

A survey was also posted online. As of June 2nd, after four months, only 125 people had completed the survey.

In early May, Houseal and Lavigne and the Planning Department began to present initial recommendations through the use of powerpoint presentations; whereas the final recommendation documents remained (and continue to remain) in undisclosed drafts.

The firm’s first stop was a Design Review Board (DRB) work session on May 8th; where Board members expressed concerns over a proposal to shift more power to the Planning Department and redraw historic overlay boundaries. Another issue raised was the development of recommendations without any initial consultation with the Board. (A video of the two-hour presentation and discussion is available here.)

According to the sanitized minutes of the sometimes chaotic meeting, Board members also expressed concern about the lack of preparation time and failure to provide an entire report before the meeting. Two months later, the final recommendation report on the historic districts remains unavailable on the Planning Department’s UDO webpage.

The next stop was a June 2nd joint work session with City Council and the Planning Commission; which was attended by approximately 30 citizens. (An audio of that meeting can be found here and the meeting minutes can be found here).

City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh began the meeting by acknowledging that reception to the process had not been positive; stating that:

“We have received comments from all sectors, and they have been largely negative.”

The issue of the lack of meaningful citizen involvement was summarized by the first speaker, Aiken resident Linda Johnson:

She stated she thought the presentation had some good work and a lot of great ideas. However, she does have some issues with the process that has happened so far. The process so
far did not include interviewing the Design Review Board, the Board of Zoning Appeals or other appointees to other commissions, and stakeholders. She was baffled how they could come up with all the strengths and weaknesses without having talked to those people. (From meeting minutes, pages 6-7)

Johnson also asked for a show of hands from Council and Commission members who had taken the online UDO survey. Only one of the twelve officials, Councilwoman Kay Brohl, acknowledged taking the survey.

The citizen involvement issue was reiterated by Councilwoman Lessie Price, who admonished the consultant and the Planning Department that “it is not always about asking folks to come to us, we have to go to them.”

As a result of this myriad of concerns regarding involvement of both appointed boards and commissions, Planning Department Director Marya Moultrie announced an extension of the public input period at Council’s July 14th meeting.

The survey remains on the UDO website, the drop in boards are now stationed in the Municipal Building, and there are plans to replicate or move them to the Odell Weeks Center.

The next steps for Houseal and Lavigne are to meet with “focus groups,” of which only the Planning Commission is identified by name; and to complete its recommendations, which are now a few months late.

Overall, the process is approximately six to eight months behind schedule and will not be completed in 2026; meaning that the next City Council is likely to have the final say.









Aiken County, Development Issues, Elections

Local Politics and Planning in 2025

Leave a comment

A County Comprensive Plan, A City Zoning Ordinance, Another Downtown Aiken Redevelopment Decision and Debate, and City Elections

by Don Moniak
January 10, 2025

Several major developments and events are on 2025’s local political docket. Notable among them are the preparation of a new 10-year Aiken County Comprehensive Plan, the rewrite of City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance, the selection of a buyer and developer of the remaining six Project Pascalis properties downtown Aiken, and municipal elections.

Figure 1. Comprehensive Plan interactive map for public comments. The site is being populated
with recommendations for new parks, transit routes, pedestrian and bicycle routes, requests for
amenities such as grocery stores, concerns over the proliferation of dollar stores, and numerous
other issues.


Aiken County’s 2025-2035 Comprehensive Plan

As described in The Resiliency Element, Aiken County is required by state law to develop a Comprehensive Plan that serves as a guiding document for future development of unincorporated portions of the county. 

The existing 2014-2024 Comprehensive Plan, which was only an amendment to the 2004-2014 plan, has passed its expiration date; but it will have to suffice until a new one is completed. In practice, the current plan did not go into effect until January 2016; it was passed in December 2015 following a one-year public comment period.

The Aiken County Planning Commission (ACPC) is more than half a year behind schedule on preparing the 2025-2035 plan that will, in its words, provide “a framework for how the County will change, through public and private investment, in the next two decades.  The comprehensive planning process provides residents, property owners, merchants, industry, builders and developers a reasonable forecast of the county’s future. The plan is long-range and seeks to address the County’s future needs for housing, economic development, recreation and cultural resources, and transportation facilities. The plan seeks to balance the desire for growth and development with protection and preservation of the County’s unique natural resources.”

Up until the first of this year, there had been no solicitation of citizen input, even though the issue first ended up on the ACPC’s May 2024 agenda—albeit without the required public notice. At County Council’s December 19, 2024 public meeting and the following ACPC meeting on December 21st, a schedule for four public involvement meetings*, as well as a two month public comment period, was announced.

Soon after the public meetings announcement, a Comprehensive Plan website was finally created. The site contains a link to an interactive map (Figure 1) for making specific comments and a general email address, planning@aikencountysc.gov, as an alternative. There is also a community survey with sixteen questions. The comment period runs through February 28, 2025.

So far, a Demographic and Economic Inventory Report and a Market Analysis Report are also available for review and comments.

*The public information sessions are scheduled as follows.

Public Information Session #1
January 14, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Roy Warner Park
6021 Roy Warner Park Ln, Wagener, SC 29164

Public Information Session #2
January 22, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Aiken Senior Life Services
1310 E Pine Log Rd, Aiken, SC 29803

Public Information Session #3
January 27, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Gregg Park Civic Center
1001 A Avenue, Graniteville, SC 29829

Public Information Session #4
January 28, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
North Augusta Community Center
495 Brookside Ave, North Augusta, SC 29841

(At present, no information sessions are scheduled for the more rural areas that surround Silver Bluff and Ridge Spring-Monetta High Schools; while two of the meetings are within incorporated portions of the county. Nor are any daytime sessions or weekend sessions planned.)

Figure 2. Initial schedule for rewrite of the City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance, as explained during
a July 9, 2024 City Council work session. The consulting firm leading the effort has promised
extensive citizen involvement at all phases of the process through a community communications campaign.


City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance/Unified Development Ordinance

The current City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance dates back to 1999. Although numerous amendments such a “tree preservation ordinance” have been incorporated since that time, it is a dated Ordinance with substantial flaws. Unlike a Comprehensive Plan, this is a legally binding document–although one with numerous loopholes such as very wide discretion in the implementation of Planned Residential and Planned Commercial zones.

In January 2024, after two of seven Aiken City Council members endorsed prioritizing a rewrite of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, city staff moved ahead with the project. Seeking public input was not a part of that step forward.

On January 31, 2024, the city’s procurement department issued a Request for Qualifications for a consulting firm specializing in urban planning to undertake leadership of the Zoning Ordinance rewrite.

In June 2024, a review committee consisting of four staff members—the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and two members of the Planning Department—selected the Chicago, Illinois-based urban planning consulting firm of Houseal-Lavigne to facilitate the process. City Council members were absent from the review and selection committee; one that also decided the process would lead to the creation of broader, more standardized Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).

On July 9, 2024, the proposed contract was presented to City Council during a work session. According the consulting firm’s presentation, the first period of “community engagement” was scheduled for late summer and early fall (Figure 2). Houseal-Lavigne’s $228,000 contract (Pages 161-179) was subsequently approved at the July 9th regular meeting.

According to the meeting minutes, prior to any rewrite “a lot of community engagement to get a sense of what (people) like about the ordinance and what (people) feel needs to be fixed moving forward” would occur. Later in the process, a communications plan would ensue that solicits comments on the draft plans.

Six months later, no opportunities for community engagement and citizen involvement have been announced. The existing Ordinance has yet to be subjected to scrutiny. Since the workshops promised during House-Lavigne’s presentation to Council have yet to materialize, it could be safe to assume the process, like the County’s Comprehensive Plan, could continue into 2026–especially if city residents choose to seriously engage in the process.

Figure 3. Six of the original Project Pascalis properties that are up for sale and redevelopment.
The six properties are presently owned by the City of Aiken; whose Municipal Development
Commission purchased them for $7.5 million in November 2021. An additional $2 million was
spent on the Newberry Hall property; which was sold to the lessee in 2024 for $1.125 million.

Downtown Development

The highly controversial downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis, which dominated city politics in 2022, was cancelled by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) on September 29, 2022. After months of inertia followed by indecision, in May 2023 the AMDC was dissolved and ownership of the half-block of commercial properties known as the Pascalis properties reverted to city ownership.

At City Council’s December 11, 2023, regular meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh presented Council with a detailed procurement plan to find a “real estate firm experienced in marketing property for adaptive reuse and renovation” for the Pascalis properties “primarily fronting the southern side of the 200 block of Richland Avenue West.”

Initially, four of the six remaining Pascalis project properties—the McGhee Building, the Taj Aiken restaurant building, the Holley House motel property, and the Hotel Aiken–were in the package. After some discussion, the Warneke Cleaners property was added to the mix and Council agreed to the approach; one that also was met with no public resistance.

The original plan presented to Council and meeting attendees did contain the caveat that the Hotel Aiken and Holley House could be purchased separately. The presented material stated that:

” Other evaluation criteria being equal, preference shall be given to a buyer who will provide a high-quality historic renovation and adaptive reuse for all of the properties listed above collectively. However, a buyer who proposes solely on the 235 Richland Ave W (Hotel Aiken) and 112 Bee Lane SW properties (Holly House) shall not be excluded.”

However, that thoughtful provision was absent from the Request for Qualifications that was issued only one week later. It will be all or nothing for potential developers.

Two firms submitted proposals for the job of marketing the properties, and the Colliers company was selected for the task. By the time Colliers put together a prospectus for potential buyers and developers, the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens Street SW (home of Vampire Penguin and Ginger Bee) had also been added to the bundle of properties (Figure 3); meaning that the same package as Project Pascalis, minus Newberry Hall, was in play.

In November 2024, Colliers representative Tommy Tapp provided a status update to Council; he described how more than twenty interested parties had expressed interest, and eleven tours of the properties for highly interested potential buyers and developers had been completed.

According to the meeting minutes (pages 9-11), Tapp stated that about half of the twelve parties that were interested enough to request tours are hotel developers, and half are apartment/condo developers; with all of them interested in harvesting historic tax credits. He told Council that the prospect of tax credits “is what is driving the project and the numbers.”

Tapp added that “one of the common questions, even from phone calls, is about parking in Aiken. The number one question that everybody has—what about parking and how much parking is available…Everybody is interested in talking about parking garages. That is a common theme that has come up.”

A Request for Proposals was then issued by Collier’s, and offers were due on December 23, 2024. According to Tapp, he would “collect the offers and review them to see if there is anything significantly missing or anything confusing and ask for clarification.” Once that is done, he will turn those over to the City Manager and “the offers will be for the city’s eyes only.”

Tapp had also stated, at the 16:40 mark of the meeting, that this need for discretion was due to “another concern, is their bid going to be kept secret? They don’t want it shopped around in the press or made public because one of the the criteria is ingenuity and creativity and what they can do with the project.”

Even though excessive secrecy was a contributing cause to the demise of Project Pascalis, no City Council members raised any concern about the perceived need for secrecy regarding final bids for a multi-million package of prominent, city-owned properties.

Elections

Since Project Pascalis, a common refrain on social media pages, and elsewhere, has been “We need new leadership.” That sentiment has commonly been accompanied by support for a “smarter growth” strategy that preserves Aiken’s status as one of South Carolina’s most desirable small cities to reside.

This year, City of Aiken residents who seek more change in leadership will have the opportunity to such change a reality; as four of the seven Aiken City Council seats are on the 2025 ballot. Those seats are currently held by Council members Lessie Price (District 2), Ed Girardeau (District 4 ), Ed Woltz (District 6), and Andrea Gregory (District 5). The latter three were all first elected in 2017 and have now served two terms; while Lessie Price has served her Northside district since 1988. No Council member faced a viable challenger in 2021.

However, the potential emergence of any viable candidates who favor divergence from the current status quo remains murky. Although the Mayoral race of 2023 featured three strong candidates, and ultimately an upset of incumbent Mayor Rick Osbon by only 14 votes, Councilwoman Kay Brohl (District 3) faced no opposition during the primary or the general election; while Councilwoman Gail Diggs (District 1) faced a weak challenger whose vote total was only in the double digits.

At the same time, since voter turnout during municipal elections is chronically poor, council members generally receive vote totals in the hundreds, not thousands. For example, in the 2017 Republican primary, Andrea Gregory won with only 220 votes; while Ed Woltz defeated incumbent Councilman Philip Merry with only 240 votes. Turnout in both the primary and general elections was only eight percent. The lesson is that any well organized campaign can stage an upset of an incumbent or establishment candidate.

The Election Schedule that was announced this week (page 395) is as follows:

July 7: Opening of filing for nomination petitions and other filing of
candidates for nomination in municipal political party primaries or conventions.

July 14: Closing of filing of candidates for nomination by political parties.

August 12: Municipal party primaries.

August 26: Municipal party primary runoffs, if necessary.

August 21: Closing of entries for nomination by petition.

November 4: Election Day.

Aiken County, Elections, Taxation

Capital Project Sales Tax Info & Empowerment That Voters Must Understand

5 Comments

Empowering voters to make better informed decisions on the Aiken County Capital Project Sales Tax (CPST) questions on the 2024 General Election ballot.

By Vicki Simons
October 29, 2024

On the General Election 2024 ballot in Aiken County, South Carolina — and possibly other places around our state — voters will have the option to vote for or against a 1% sales tax to be used for listed capital projects.

Let’s look at this issue in some detail…

South Carolina State Law on LOST/CPST

Title 4, Chapter 10, Article 1, of the South Carolina Code of Laws allows counties within our state to:

  • establish a Local Option Sales Tax (LOST),
  • which may be called a “Capital Project Sales Tax” (CPST), and
  • which is “a sales and use tax of one percent on the gross proceeds of sales within the county area.”

Section 4-10-30 (B) of the SC Code of Laws provides this template of a question for the ballot, with options for voters to select “Yes” or “No”:
“The ballot must read substantially as follows: 
‘Must a one percent sales and use tax be levied in __________ County for the purpose of allowing a credit against a taxpayer’s county and municipal ad valorem tax liability and for the purpose of funding county and municipal operations in the __________ County area?’”

Part of Paragraph (D) in that same section reads, in part:
“The notice must show the anticipated credit on the following classes of property: 
(1) a primary residence; 
(2) personal property including, but not limited to, an automobile; 
(3) a commercial facility; 
(4) an industrial facility.”

Paragraph (D) is most likely the reason why a LOST/CPST question on the 2024 General Election ballot may be extremely long, because it lists every single project that will be tackled if a majority of electors so desire passage.

CPST: New vs. Existing Tax

In some counties, a Capital Project Sales Tax is not a new tax but rather the continuation, renewal, or “reimposition” of an existing tax.

For example, in Aiken County, the CPST question on the 2024 General Election ballot is the fifth time that this tax issue has come before the voters (nicknamed “CPST V” or “CPST5”), each rendition of the CPST covering different projects.

In Aiken County, the projects under CPST V were determined by members appointed to a “Capital Sales Tax V Commission,” the “Project List” being shown on page 87 of their 99-page CC Docs document for their May 7, 2024, meeting.

You may also see it listed on the county’s website, under Ordinances > 2024, listed as: “ORD Reimpose & Continue a One percent Sales Tax (CPST5).”

CPST: What Gets Funded and By Whom?

While general classes of projects paid for with CPST funds may vary from county to county, Aiken County’s project classes include:

  • All vehicles;
  • All dirt road paving;
  • All park acquisitions and improvements;
  • All capital support for the volunteer fire departments; and
  • All building and facility additions, expansions, and improvements.

According to one online resource regarding Aiken County’s CPST V proposal:

  • A substantial part of the sales tax revenues generated by the CPST may be paid by those living outside of the County;
  • Without the CPST, 100 percent of property tax revenues making up the difference will be from local property owners;
  • Most CPST-funded projects are paid in cash, requiring neither borrowing nor interest; and
  • The CPST will supposedly attract new industry and industrial expansions.

CPST: Aiken County, SC, Specifics

In Aiken County, CPST ordinances must go through 3 readings before County Council before advancing to the ballot.

One of those readings is a Public Hearing, during which members of the public may comment specifically about that.

So far in 2024, I have spoken 3 times before Aiken County Council about the CPST, once during the Public Hearing.

On February 20, 2024, I gave background about a CPST and then encouraged Aiken County Council to do these 4 specific things:

  1. Show true transparency and openness regarding the announcement and documentation of all meetings pertaining to the CPST;
  2. Make the case for the CPST to those at the top of the County’s Organizational Chart, Aiken County Voters, including using visuals for visual learners;
  3. Insist that industries invited here be in keeping with freedom, liberty, and the citizens’ values; and
  4. Carefully weigh any future “Fee in Lieu of Tax” agreements which could alter the tax landscape in Aiken County substantially.

On June 4 and July 16, 2024, I pointed out to Aiken County Council that the information on their website showed:

  • Poor execution of CPST III (2013 – 2020) projects, with 86 of the 175 projects either not having been started or the information not being updated; and
  • No project information under CPST IV at all.

I asked for accountability for these projects being completed in a timely manner, especially since inflation has eroded the value of the U.S. dollar over the 4 years between April 2020 and April 2024 by an estimated 22%.

Prior to writing this article, I was of the opinion that Aiken County Council made a poor case for passage of CPST V for the following reasons:

  • Poor accountability on their website; and
  • No reporting during regular meetings on CPST project status updates, even if by a County staff member.

Since I started writing this article:

  • I have found that the CPST information on AikenCountySC.gov has been updated; and
  • I have come to believe that my speeches helped to spur at least one person within Aiken County government into taking that action.

I have challenged Aiken County Council regarding CPST projects to ensure:

  • Transparency;
  • Openness;
  • Accountability; and
  • Visibility.

In the future, I plan to address the need for CPST project status updates to be made during Aiken County Council’s regular meetings, not just during their Work Sessions or Committee meetings.

I also suggested that Council create a committee of non-conflicted people from around Aiken County to meet on a quarterly basis regarding CPST project oversight.

Because Aiken County’s CPST V project list includes non-county projects for 2 cities and 8 smaller municipalities, I know someone who believes that CPST money represents a “slush fund” that is poorly managed.

I would love to see groups of people around South Carolina — who are concerned about a Local Option Sales Tax in their areas — to hold their elected officials accountable.

Misleading Info and An Objection Regarding CPST

One popular but misleading nickname for the LOST or CPST — at least in Aiken County — is “Penny Tax.”

The “Penny Tax” nickname leads people to the erroneous belief that:

  • The amount being collected is only one cent ($0.01) per transaction on the total cost of goods and services;
  • When, in fact, the amount being collected is 1% of the “gross proceeds of sales.”

So, on a $1,000 purchase, a 1% sales tax amounts to $10 being added to the bill, not $0.01.

Some people may object to a LOST or CPST because sales taxes tend to affect lower-income folks disproportionately, making them pay a larger percentage of their income on taxed goods and services.

Voter Empowerment Regarding 2024 CPST Ballot Questions

Having written that, now let me take a step back and provide you with some empowering information in order to encourage you to vote — whether yes or no — on any LOST/CPST question on the 2024 General Election ballot.

First, we read in The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

If you are a U.S. citizen, you are part of “the governed.”

Second, Article I, Section 1, of The Constitution of the State of South Carolina reads:

“All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government.”

If you are a South Carolina citizen, you are one of “the people.”

Third, every year, the Comptroller General of South Carolina prepares an Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), the 307-page document for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023, being online here.

On page 15 of the 2023 ACFR, there is an organizational chart showing [South Carolina] Voters at the top over all branches of South Carolina Government:

  • Executive Branch;
  • Legislative Branch; and
  • Judicial Branch (which currently is “under” the Legislative Branch).

If you are registered to vote in South Carolina, you are one of “the voters.”

Fourth, Aiken County’s 2024 Organizational Chart shows that “Aiken County Voters” are at the top, over all county-level government bodies, judicial officials, constitutional officers, elected officials, and others.

If you live in Aiken County and you are registered to vote, you are one of the “Aiken County Voters.”

Other counties may have similar organizational charts that show their voters at the top.

Sixth, in order to familiarize yourself with what will be on your ballot before you get to your polling location (in part, so that you aren’t freaked out about the length of a CPST question on your ballot):

Finally, now that you know the power that you have, you may be better equipped to go forth and vote on any Local Option Sales Tax or Capital Project Sales Tax question that comes before you on the 2024 General Election ballot.

______________________

This article first appeared at Palmetto State Watch

Other stories regarding Capital Project Sales Tax:

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

CPST Requests: 264,066,386

The One-Percent Sales Tax Referendum Public Hearing

Aiken County Government, Elections, Letters, October 2024

Aiken Election Board: Incompetence or Malfeasance?

2 Comments

Guest Editorial
by Peter DeLorme
October 16, 2024

In the first week of October, Ms. Maria Sullivan of Aiken had a letter printed in the Aiken Standard. It praised the Aiken County Board of Elections for its quick action during the first week of August when it appointed to the Elections Office Interim Director Ms. Judy Justice, and Interim Assistant Director Ms. Amy Nichols. These appointments were triggered by the resignations of the Elections Office’s Director Cynthia Holland in May, and Assistant Director Michael Bond in July. The interim employees were to fill the management void until a new Director was hired.

Ms. Sullivan’s letter went on to lament the sudden dismissal of those same interim employees and to complain about the makeup of the committee that had conducted the search for a new Director.

First, let’s look at what really happened with the flawed appointments of the interim employees, and how they relate to the statement “someone did something they should not have done” made recently by the Board’s Chair Ms. Blanche Wimberly.

Early in her interim tenure Ms. Justice relayed to me two important pieces of information. One was that both she and Interim Assistant Director Nichols had been simultaneously appointed by the Board. The other was that she had no input into the decision to appoint Ms. Nichols.

SC Law grants the Elections Board the authority, in a public meeting, to appoint the Director. It grants to the Director the authority to select and manage the Office staff, which includes the Assistant Director. Clearly, the Board should not have appointed the Interim Assistant Director, nor should the Interim Director have been appointed in a non-public Board meeting.

The State Elections Commission (SEC), in relation to these Board actions, has stated “We have had conversations with multiple people in Aiken County about this issue but have not heard a consistent story of how these hirings were made by the board.” What does it say about our Elections Board that its members cannot explain to the SEC how the interim employees were lawfully appointed?

Second, Ms. Sullivan comments that the interim employees were abruptly terminated and there was not a suitable transition period.

Remember, these were interim appointments.  It is not surprising that Ms. Justice was replaced immediately upon the hiring of a permanent Director.  

I am similarly not surprised that Ms. Nichols was not retained. In one of her Facebook posts, she wrote: “Yet (sic), the election was manipulated in two critical ways: First, the government dishonestly used the coronavirus pandemic to make wholesale changes to our voting rules that made it easier for Democrats to amass ballots.”  Posts such as this made her unsuitable for a management position in the non-partisan office charged with conducting our elections.   

Were the interim appointments made so quickly that there was no proper vetting of the candidates?  It would be useful to know who proposed this person be hired and appointed.

As it relates to the abrupt termination of the interim employees by the new Director, the SEC also referenced the SC Code of Laws, writing:

“Once hired, it would be the responsibility of the director to hire and manage all subordinate office staff, which would include the position of assistant director (see SC Code of laws Section 7-5-10 (B)).”

This statement clearly puts into the hands of the Director the ability/responsibility to terminate (or to use Ms. Sullivans term, ‘fire’) Elections Office employees.

It is clear from an article printed in the Aiken Standard on Sept. 18 that the decisions on the terminations were properly made by the new Director, Ms. Dana Burden. As to whether or not there was sufficient turnover, what took place during the transition were personnel matters, so it is unlikely we will ever know what turnover, if any, took place.

It is commendable and important that the Board was supporting Ms. Burden as she considered whether or not to retain the interim employees and that she was given that leeway by the board. That is a good start to a new era in which there needs to be more cooperation and trust between the Board and the Director.

Third, in the middle of her letter complaining about how the recent transitions took place, Ms. Sullivan brought up old news about the make-up of the committee performing the search for the new Director. Her implication was that Ms. Wimberly acted improperly when she did not appoint to the committee Ms. Lori Boddy, who was the only Board officer not so appointed. Why this was improper, or how this presumed appointment failure negatively impacted the search was not explained. Nor was it explained how this presumed failure related to the hiring or firing of the interim employees.

There has been turnover and irregular activity in the Election office the last few months, but a visit to the Elections Office will show that preparations and training for the election are well underway. 

Unfortunately there are still unfilled 300 of the needed 900+ Clerk and Poll Manager positions.   All civic-minded citizens are urged to sign up NOW, and to say YES when contacted by the County elections office, to work the polls.   Yes, it is a long, long, day, but it provides a very satisfying experience.