Category Archives: New Development & Industry

Transparency and Openness Needed In Aiken County Council Public Hearings

Transparency and Openness Needed During Aiken County Council’s Public Hearings on Ordinances Involving Fee-in-Lieu-of-Tax and Incentive Agreements

By Vicki Simons
August 16, 2026

If you learned that people elected into office — purportedly to represent you — have been making decisions without transparency and openness, how would that make you feel?

Furthermore, if you knew that there was something that you could do to change that situation for the better, wouldn’t you want to do it?

The Eye-Opening Series of Events

In 2023, Aiken County Council approved by majority (not unanimous) vote an ordinance regarding a Fee in Lieu of Tax and Incentive Agreement for an entity referred to as “Project Sabal.

When at-that-time Councilman Kelley Mobley (District 4) and current Councilman Mike Kellems (District 2) objected to the ordinance, the eyes of my understanding were opened:

Regarding at least Project Sabal — and who knows how many projects before that — Council members had been kept in the dark regarding the entity with whom they were preparing to enter into a legally binding contract. 

What Is A Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreement?

Before I proceed, I need to back up and cover some background.

According to the South Carolina Department of Revenue:

FILOT is a Fee in Lieu of Tax agreement, which is a contractual Property Tax incentive between a company and the county where the company’s project is located.

Industries that invest at least $2.5 million in South Carolina may negotiate for a fee-in-lieu of Property Taxes. This can result in a savings of about 40% on Property Taxes…

In this article, I shall refer to all of the following as FILOT Agreements (or FILOTs):

  • “Fee In Lieu of Ad Valorem Taxes Agreement”;
  • “Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements”;
  • “Fee in Lieu of Tax and Incentive Agreements”; and
  • “Fee in Lieu of Property Tax Agreements.”
Where is Documentation About Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements?

As it concerns counties within South Carolina, at least 3 places in the South Carolina Code of Laws cover Fee in Lieu of [Property] Tax agreements:

Regarding FILOTs in Aiken County, they are extended:

  • either to businesses that already exist here and are looking to expand;
  • or to businesses looking to set up shop here for the first time. 

According to Aiken County’s Code of Ordinances (aka Code of Laws), Sec. 2-63. – Legislative action.

  • “(a) The council shall take legislative action by ordinance. …”‘;
  • “(b) With the exception of emergency ordinances, all ordinances shall be read at three (3) public meetings of the council, on three (3) separate days, with an interval of not less than seven (7) days between the second and third reading; provided that a verbatim reading of an ordinance shall not be required unless such reading is requested by a member. Public hearings may be held on the same day as a reading of the ordinance is made. …”; and
  • “d) Public hearings, after reasonable public notice, must be held before final council action…”
How Are FILOT Ordinances Worded?

In the past, in Council’s agendas, the titles of ordinances involving FILOT Agreements have typically been written similar to (or exactly like) this, with the project name completed:

Ordinance Authorizing (1) The Execution And Delivery Of A Fee In Lieu Of Tax And Incentive Agreement By And Between Aiken County, South Carolina And A Company Identified For The Time Being As Project ___________ (The “Company”) With Respect To The Establishment Of Certain Facilities In The County (The “Project”); (2) The Benefits Of A Multi-County Industrial Or Business Park To Be Made Available To The Company And The Project; (3) Certain Special Source Revenue Credits In Connection With The Project; And (4) Other Matters Relating Thereto.

To get the details — which can be dozens of pages long — one has to dig down into the “CC Docs” document that accompanies the meeting agenda where the Public Hearing is listed.

Information Withheld from Aiken County Citizens Regarding FILOT Agreement Details

In my speech during the May 2, 2023, meeting of Aiken County Council — which followed the vote on Project Sabal — I posed the following question and comments:

How are Aiken County citizens supposed to talk intelligently during Public Hearings regarding various “projects” when the company’s name and the scope of those “projects” are withheld from them?

During the April 18, 2023, Regular Session, numerous Council members spoke during a Public Hearing about “Project Sabal.”

… by the time a “project” makes it to a Public Hearing, it is my opinion that the mystery, the secrecy, and the lack of transparency must be stripped away so that the public can speak intelligently before Council on this matter.

I feel compelled to remind you that Article I, § 1, of The South Carolina Constitution says:  “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.” (6)

Furthermore, we read in Title 30, Chapter 4 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, The Freedom of Information Act, in Section 30-4-15:  “The General Assembly finds that it is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that citizens shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in the formulation of public policy. …” (7)

Therefore, I am requesting that in every future meeting, before there is a Public Hearing about any “project,” that the name of the company and the scope of its business be made known so that the citizens of Aiken County — and even Council members — can make fully informed decisions and speak intelligently about the business that may be about to happen in our own backyard.

FILOT Details?

If one searched online for something like “SC Department of Revenue list of Fee in Lieu of Tax agreements”, one would possibly receive a result like this: 

“The South Carolina Department of Revenue (SCDOR) does not maintain or publish a centralized public statewide list or database of individual Fee in Lieu of Tax (FILOT) agreements.”

In order to find specific FILOT Agreements, one is directed to:

  • either contact county offices;
  • or search County Council records.

So, on May 15, 2023, I requested pursuant to Section 30-4-20 and Section 30-4-30 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (the Freedom of Information Act), specific information regarding FILOTs in Aiken County.

In one June 6, 2023, speech before Aiken County Council, specifically during the Public Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2023 – 2024 Budget, I said:

What bearing do Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements passed by Aiken County Council have on the Fiscal Year 2023 – 2024 budget?

During the May 16, 2023, Aiken County Council meeting, I informed the Council that I had submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to learn some very specific information about “Fee in Lieu of Tax” agreements that Aiken County Council has passed by majority vote over the last 10 years. (1)


I asked for:

a list of the agreements;
the votes cast by the Council;
the fees that were paid; and
a calculation of the total taxes that would have been paid by each of the project names, businesses, and other entities — from the time they came into Aiken County through Fiscal Year 2022 – 2023 — had they not paid the fee up-front.

I have received from the County Attorney enough information to be able to summarize some things for you.


From his first email:

(1) The County would have all of the individual documents that are part of economic development projects, a list of which were named, and from which information would need to be gleaned and put into the format I requested. 
(2) The County is not believed to have a comprehensive listing of projects, as each agreement is “a distinct economic matter for the County.” 
(3) Furthermore, “the FOIA does not require a public body to create a document (such as a list or a spreadsheet) it does not have at the time of [an] FOIA request.”
(4) I understand that each entity’s potential tax payment outside a Fee in Lieu of Tax agreement would have been hypothetical and is not something the County would calculate and set forth in a record.  


From his second email:

(1) He reached out to the President of the Western SC Economic Development Partnership, who provided him with information.
(2) There were numerous attachments to his second email, including:

— a spreadsheet containing a list of 24 entities with “investments” ranging from $2.5 million to $400 million; and 
9 PDF documents, for each of the years 2013 through 2021, each of which was entitled “South Carolina Department of Revenue Fee In Lieu of Tax Status Report.”
(3) For each of the Status Reports, the columns are entitled [with my notes in brackets]: 

SID/SFX [undefined]; – Owner/Operator [entity’s name];
Schedule [a code, also undefined]; 
Term [in years, usually ranging from 15 to 40 years]; 
Type [“Little”, “Big”, “Simplified”, and “Super”];
Investment Years [beginning through ending years];
Status [“Open” or “Closed”];
Certified [date]; – Contractual Amt ($);
Gross Cost ($); and – Fee ($).

I received for each of the years 2013 – 2021, a South Carolina Department of Revenue Fee ln Lieu of Tax Status Report.

Please note that the time frame (“Term”) for each FILOT in the Reports that I received ranges from 15 to 40 years. 

So, it is no trivial matter that a company can request — and Aiken County Government can enter into — a FILOT Agreement spanning 4 decades!

Limits of Non-Disclosure Agreements?

During my second June 6, 2023, speech to Aiken County Council — and regarding a different entity with whom the Council was about to enter into a FILOT Agreement — I said:

While I understand that a Non-Disclosure Agreement (or “NDA”) (5) requires contracting parties to keep material, knowledge, or information confidential, by the time a proposed “Fee in Lieu of Tax” agreement makes it to a Public Hearing, it is my opinion that any and all mystery, secrecy, and lack of transparency must be stripped away so that the public understands what may be about to happen in our own backyard.

On behalf of the citizens, taxpayers, and voters of Aiken County, South Carolina, I am requesting — before Aiken County Council takes a vote on this — that Council reveals the entire nature and scope of what is behind and concerning “a Fee Agreement By And Between Aiken County, South Carolina And [Entity Name] Providing For A Payment Of A Fee In Lieu Of Taxes And Other Matters Related Thereto.”

The reason why I am asking for this information is because during the April 18, 2023, Regular Session of Aiken County Council, numerous Council members spoke during a Public Hearing about a project, during which it became apparent that Council members were NOT familiar with the company, the nature, or the scope of the project on which it was preparing to vote.

I feel compelled to remind you that Article I, § 1, of The South Carolina Constitution says:  “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.” (6)

Again, I am requesting that the nature and scope of the business behind this proposed Fee in Lieu of Tax agreement be fully disclosed before Council votes on it.

Explanation of FILOT Ordinances by Aiken County Council

Over time since 2023, I have observed that Aiken County Council’s Chairman has been slightly more transparent and open regarding FILOT ordinances.

It has also been my observation that a number of economic development opportunities — that give rise to FILOT agreements — have been brought before Council by the director of the Western SC Economic Development Partnership (WSCEDP).

Since 2023 — and I think in direct response to the speeches I have made calling for transparency and openness regarding FILOT Agreements — I have also observed that the WSCEDP director has been a little bit more forthcoming with details about the entities with which Aiken County are preparing to enter into a legally binding contract.

In my March 5, 2024, speech before Aiken County Council, I said that:

  • the Project Sabal name hid the company name; 
  • there were many unknowns; and 
  • in spite of all of that, [a majority of] Council voted in favor of the FILOT ordinance.

In my September 17, 2024, speech before Aiken County Council, I addressed the “big reveal” that “Project Sabal” was actually Meta and I further said:

Regardless of the size of the investment and the number of new jobs that any company will be bringing to Aiken County, the highest importance is to uphold the self-evident truths that we have a Creator, that all men are created equal, and that He endowed each of us with certain unalienable Rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (9)

Recall that:
— Article I, § 1, of The South Carolina Constitution begins: “All political power is vested in and derived from the people only…”; (10) and
— The First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States secures our God-endowed rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (11)

In my opinion, Aiken County Council and Aiken County Government must revise Chapter 17 of the Aiken County Code of Ordinances about Planning, such that all future economic development here honors and upholds these precious truths. (12)

About Public Hearings in General

I have observed that Aiken County Council’s Public Hearings on various matters have taken place during the First Reading, Second Reading, or Third Reading.

I do not know why Public Hearings are held during different readings on different kinds of ordinances.

When it comes to FILOT ordinances, I have observed in the past that each one’s related Public Hearing takes place during the Third Reading (when there is no further time to consider the matter).

During my June 17, 2025, speech to Aiken County Council, I said:

How can Aiken County Council increase transparency and public trust when it comes to Public Hearings?

Per the definition that I gave in my February 4 speech (A), Public Hearings have two purposes:

1. Citizens, taxpayers, and voters can express their opinions about the ordinance; and
2. Aiken County Council needs to answer questions from their constituents.

Second, when Aiken County Council is considering an ordinance that requires a Public Hearing — especially one that offers a financial incentive — Council needs to ensure that there is adequate time for research, meaning that the Public Hearing for said ordinance needs to be held during the Second Reading, not the Third Reading.


A clause from Aiken County’s Code of Ordinances, Section 2-63, paragraph (d), reads: (B)


“A public hearing will be held on all pending ordinances no later than prior to the meeting at which third and final reading is scheduled…”


It does not read that a public hearing will be held prior to the third and final reading during the same meeting. 


Third, Aiken County Council members need time on these ordinances to consider input from all Aiken County voters (your bosses), including those who:

Either are unable to attend the Public Hearing in person;
Or become aware of information that was not known when the Public Hearing took place. (C)

In 2023 and 2024, I called on Aiken County Council to ensure that there is adequate time between Public Hearings and Third Readings of ordinances. (D)

During Council’s June 3, 2025, meeting, a Public Hearing on an ordinance offering a financial incentive for a “project” took place during the Third Reading, not the Second Reading. (E)


That makes three such situations this year: Project Wisteria, Project Calypso, and Project Sunflower. (F)(G)(E)


This lack of transparency is unacceptable to me! 


So, let’s fix it!

Please note that the Code of Ordinances may have been updated on this matter since I read this speech.

However, I have pressed more than once for Aiken County Council to hold Public Hearings for FILOTs on the Second Reading instead of the Third Reading.

To-date, Aiken County Council has made no move to make this happen.

Questions Remain Regarding FILOTs

Since I was so concerned about the lack of transparency and openness concerning FILOT agreements entered into in Aiken County, I compiled a list of what I considered to be “fundamental questions” that I believed Council needed to answer — or have answered — during FILOT Public Hearings.

I delivered the most recent iteration of these fundamental questions during a Public Hearing on a FILOT on June 16, 2026, in my speech before Aiken County Council, part of which is as follows:

By way of reminder:
The Aiken County Organizational Chart (C) shows Aiken County Voters at the top, over entities including Aiken County Council;
and – From The Declaration of Independence (D), we read that to secure our Creator-endowed, unalienable rights, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Per the definition that I gave in my February 4, 2025, speech (E), Public Hearings have two purposes:

1. Citizens, taxpayers, and voters can express their opinions about the ordinance; and
2. Aiken County Council needs to answer questions from their constituents.

Per my March 4, 2025, speech (F), the Freedom of Information Act within the South Carolina Code of Laws completely allows answering constituent questions in public.


Note that I give the phrase “Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreement” and similar such phrases the acronym F-I-L-O-T, which I pronounce “FILOT”.


On behalf of all Aiken County Voters (your bosses), I am requiring you to answer all of my questions tonight before you vote on this ordinance.


Let’s read these questions…


Aiken County Council

1. Has every member of County Council read and understood ALL of the documentation regarding this ordinance in the CC Docs document that accompanies this reading?
2. Will you as a member of County Council vow never to vote in favor of this ordinance — that is, “rubber stamp” it — merely because:
a. you have always — in the past — trusted the entities who brought it before you;
b. you don’t want to mar your record of supporting economic development; and/or
c. your habit has been to vote the same way someone else on Council votes?

Personnel
3. As it concerns this ordinance, will Aiken County Government provide complete lists of:
a. the names of any and all persons — by his/her level of government — who has received advice or input; and
b. the names of all persons — together with their titles and organization names — from whom the advice and input has come?

Company
4. What is a brief overview of this company’s history?
5. Is this company domestic-owned or foreign-owned?
6. What are all of the products/services that this company plans to manufacture/provide at this new or expanded location?
7. How will offering the company this FILOT Agreement affect or influence the Creator-endowed and unalienable rights of Aiken County Voters?

Fee In Lieu of Tax (FILOT) Agreement
8. Can you explain both the pros and the cons of offering a FILOT Agreement to this company at this time?
9. What is the projected “investment” that this company plans to make as a result of this FILOT Agreement?
10. In years, what is the length of this FILOT Agreement?
11. In dollars, what amount of taxes will this company not have to pay?
12. How will Aiken County compensate for this lost tax revenue?

Resources
13. What resources will this company require on a monthly basis, including, but not limited to:
— a. electricity, 
b. water, and 
c. sewage treatment?
14. Does Aiken County have the resources to meet the needs of existing residents and businesses — as well as this new company/location?
15. Has a traffic study been done that shows the increase in traffic by types of vehicles?
16. What commitments has the company made for infrastructure maintenance and improvements?

Environment
17. Once operational, what are the anticipated impacts of this new/expanded location, including, but not limited to:
a. emissions into the air;
b. effluents into the water;
c. waste solids that will be produced; and
d. odors that can be detected by the human nose?
18. How often will testing of water and air be done to assure Aiken County residents that there is no contamination?

Jobs
19. Once construction is completed, how many new employees will the company employ at this new or expanded location?
20. Will these new employees come primarily from within Aiken County?
21. How many of these jobs will be categorized as:
a. skilled labor; and
b. unskilled labor?
22. At start-up, what wages — or ranges of wages — will the company pay to:
a. skilled labor; and
b. unskilled labor?

I have done the homework for you by asking fundamental questions, so that when they are answered, you will not be voting blind on this ordinance. 


Your constituents deserve answers to all of my questions.


To make answering these questions easy, I have printed and had distributed enough written copies of this speech for each of you, a company representative, and the County Administrator.


Thank you for answering all of my questions before you vote.

To-date, every time I have asked questions like this during a Public Hearing, they have not been fully answered.

In fact, it has been my experience that Council members never engage at all with members of the audience regarding questions about FILOT Agreements during Public Hearings.

Does Council Ever Talk About FILOT Agreements in Public?

Up to June 2023, I confess that I:

  • Had never attended any of the Council’s Committee meetings; and
  • Was naively under the impression that all Council members totally understood all of the details associated with every agreement upon which they voted.

Could it have been the case that Aiken County Council members were talking about FILOTs during Committee meetings?

I began to attend a number of Council’s Committee meetings — Administrative, Development, and Judicial and Public Safety Committees — particularly when something on the agenda caught my attention.

I have observed that these Committee meetings are generally held within either 15- or 30-minute time frames.

One wonders how a legally binding agreement — like a FILOT that spans up to 4 decades — can adequately be discussed during a 15- or 30-minute meeting.

I credit Don Moniak for sharing with me that ordinances are not discussed during Aiken County Council’s Committee meetings!

He further shared with me that the Aiken City Council does discuss potential ordinances during their Work Sessions; i.e. the proposed hospitality tax increase and the proposed transfer of the Shaw Creek Preserve to the South Carolina Forestry Commission.

So, I went digging for information on Aiken County Council’s most recent previous FILOT Ordinance — regarding “Project Synthesis” — to see if any Committee or Work Session covered this topic and here’s what I found (from oldest to newest):

May 19, 2026:
Development Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Aiken County Council Work Session (no mention)
Aiken County Council Agenda (Introduction of Ordinances for First Reading, #2, Project Synthesis)

June 2, 2026:
Judicial and Public Safety Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Aiken County Council Work Session (no mention)
Aiken County Council Agenda (Old Business, #3, Second Reading, Project Synthesis Company Named)

June 16, 2026:
Development Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Aiken County Council Work Session (no mention)
Aiken County Council Agenda (Public Hearing, #1, and Old Business, #2, Third Reading, Project Synthesis Company Named)

So, it appears that Aiken County Council never discussed any details regarding Project Synthesis during any Committee meeting or any Work Session.

And I know that they didn’t talk about this FILOT ordinance during Aiken County Council’s meeting!

This seems to be a repeated pattern: 

Aiken County Council members almost always have zero discussion about FILOT ordinances in public.

Why?

At the top of every Aiken County Council Agenda, we read: “Council Administrator Form of Government”.

The question follows then: If the Aiken County Council leads the charge on government, why don’t Aiken County Council members lead — or at least respond — with transparency and openness regarding FILOT ordinances during Public Hearings?

To me, this practice of being mute during Public Hearings on FILOTs is not acceptable; however, it is going to take more than just one Aiken County Voter to change things.

Citizen Awareness and Involvement

Over the years, I have seen these examples of citizens who have shown up en masse at Aiken County Council meetings and stood up for their Creator-endowed and unalienable rights in one way, shape, or form:

  • 2024.04.16: “Standing-room-only” sized crowd showed up at the Aiken County Council meeting over the House of Raeford Farms, Inc. (“Project Sunny” or chicken slaughterhouse) issue
  • 2026.04.23: A huge crowd showed up to support the Comprehensive Plan.
  • 2026.06.19: Aiken County residents were persistent in voicing their concerns about the planned construction of a 115-kilovolt transmission line.

I would like to see many more of Aiken County’s citizens, taxpayers, and voters regularly attend Aiken County Council’s meetings and stand up for their Creator-endowed and unalienable rights on issues, including Public Hearings on Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements.

Call to Action

During my January 16, 2024, speech to Aiken County Council, I said:

Some time back, I was informed of the difference between “transparency” and “openness,” which I want to describe for you:

“Transparency” is when someone shows you an envelope;
“Openness” is when someone tells you what’s in the envelope.

In my opinion, Aiken County Council and Aiken County Government need to do a much better job of demonstrating transparency and openness during Public Hearings on Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements.

Wouldn’t you agree that if a FILOT is all that it needs to be, it should hold up well under scrutiny?

Here is what I would personally like to see happen regarding Aiken County Council’s handling of FILOT ordinances:

  1. All FILOT Public Hearings are held during the Second Reading, not the Third Reading, of the ordinance;
  2. Every Council member is required to read ALL of the documentation regarding every FILOT ordinance;
  3. Every Council member is required to understand ALL FILOT documentation;
  4. Every Council member is able to answer the fundamental questions that I — and others from within Aiken County — have raised regarding a FILOT ordinance; and
  5. Before a FILOT ordinance is passed on Third Reading, all answers from the pubic are answered during the Public Hearing.

I would not be opposed to the Council Chairman calling upon either the County Administrator or County Attorney to answer FILOT ordinance questions, as long as they are all answered.

In my opinion, if the questions cannot be answered about a FILOT ordinance, it should not be passed. Period.

Opportunity to Act

Researching SCPublicNotices.com, one sees that on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, Aiken County Council will be holding a Public Hearing described as:


“There will be public hearing at the regular meeting of County Council on Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 6:00 pm, in the County Council Chambers, Third Floor, Aiken County Government Center, 1930 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 concerning the following matter: … 3. Ordinance Authorizing an Amendment of That Certain Fee In Lieu of Ad Valorem Taxes Agreement by And Between Aiken County, South Carolina and Project NEXGEN, Relating to, Without Limitation, The Extension Of The Investment Period Under The Agreement; And Providing For Other Related Matters.”

The FILOT ordinance for “Project NEXGEN” was introduced under First Reading on July 21, 2026 and was not listed on the agenda for either of the Special Called Meetings on July 28 or August 4.

Even if this Public Hearing will be held during the Second Reading, I do not see a company name associated with “Project NEXGEN” online and won’t be able to see Aiken County Council’s Agenda for August 18, 2026, until it is published for the public on Monday, August 17.

If you believe that greater transparency and openness are needed during Aiken County Council’s Public Hearings on FILOT ordinances, please do 2 things:

_____________________

Looking Back: 35 Years of Headlines

Part 2 of Two
See Part 1: Looking Forward: What Kind of Future Could Project Sunny Buy?

If past is prologue, what can be said of a company that, on the one hand, gives generously of funding and efforts to causes and non-profits in its communities and, on the other hand, takes much from its communities?

Reading headlines from over the past 35 years leaves little doubt that both are true. An internet search for “House of Raeford donates” will produce an exhaustive gallery of images documenting the good deeds performed by this company.

Scratching a little below the surface, other headlines emerge with stories of a company whose record on violating environmental regulations and worker safety has been described as “abysmal.” This is not to single out House of Raeford. Similar histories exist among other major players in the poultry processing and slaughterhouse industry.

In the course of reading these stories, which span decades, certain patterns begin to emerge. Histories repeat. Issues that existed four decades ago persist to this day.

Below are some of the headlines from the past 35 years — stories that tend to pass like ships in the night until they personally affect us. Most of the of articles involve House of Raeford, whose stories are highlighted in gray.

1989

Inside the Slaughterhouse
From the 3-part series: “Ruling the Roost”
By Barbara Goldaftas. Southern Exposure. Summer 1989
Excerpt: “Perhaps the most serious threat at the processing plants, however, is the risk of disabling injury. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, poultry workers suffer higher rates of illness and injury — rates that are more than twice the average for all workers in the private sector. Poultry processing is ‘more debilitating than any industry I know,’ says Sarah Fields-Davis, director of the Center for Women’s Economic Alternatives, an advocacy group based in Ahoskie, North Carolina. ‘I have seen women without an arm or fingers, with half a hand.’”

”I feel what women feel”
An interview with Donna Bazemore,poultry worker turned organizer.
From the 3-part series: “Ruling the Roost.”
By Bob Hall. Southern Exposure. Summer 1989.
“….Once you go through the door, everything changes. Your whole attitude. When you come out, you’re like two separate people. It has to do with the stress and pressure they put you under.”

Chicken Empires
From the 3-part series: “Ruling the Roost.”
By Bob Hall. Southern Exposure. Summer 1989.
Excerpt: “With its gushing flow of profits, one wonders why the industry doesn’t have the “courage” — to use Don Tyson’s word — to slow down its processing lines, treat its workers with respect, give their contract growers a measure of security, and still produce a product people are happy to eat? Must Frank Perdue and the 47 other chicken kings treat the world as a competitive jungle forever? ‘Perdue showed everybody how to really market chickens,’ says Tex Walker, an organizer with UFCW during its unsuccessful campaign in Accomac. ‘Now somebody needs to show him how to treat people like human beings.’”

2000

River Park Planners Want Plant Relocated
By Bridget A. Sheldon. The State. December 29, 2000
Chicken processing facility occupies coveted site beside the Congaree River.

2006

Civil Action: Cally R. Forrest, Jrl, and Suzanne Forrest, Plaintiffs, vs. Columbia Farms, Inc., Columbia Farms Distribution, Inc., Columbia Farms of Georgia, Inc., And The House of Raeford Farms, Inc., Defendants.

2007

House of Horrors: Turkey Slaughterhouse Investigation Reveals Sickening Cruelty
Mercy for Animals. May 18, 2007.
Excerpt: A Mercy For Animals undercover investigation takes you behind the closed doors of one of the country’s largest poultry slaughterhouses — House of Raeford Farms, Inc. in Raeford, North Carolina. In January and February of 2007 an MFA investigator worked in the “live-hang” area of the plant (where live birds are snapped into shackles on the slaughter line), secretly filming egregious acts of animal cruelty with a hidden camera. 

Denny’s Suspends Buying Poultry
The State. May 23, 2007.
Denny’s, Inc. has suspended poultry purchases from house of Raeford Farms in North Carolina pending further investigation into allegations of mistreatment of animals before slaughter. The allegations had surfaced and a video shot and a house of Raeford facility by representatives of an animal welfare group, the restaurant operator said in a statement.

2008

Worker Abuse Documented Yet Again in the South’s Poultry Industry
By Sue Sturgis. Facing South. February 13, 2008.
The next time you pick up a House of Raeford product at the grocery store — Black Forest Turkey Ham, perhaps, or maybe some Chicken Tenders — you should stop and think about the human suffering that’s not listed among the ingredients. This week the Charlotte Observer is featuring an investigative series titled “The Cruelest Cuts,” examining the plight of workers at the poultry giant’s Carolina facilities. A team of reporters and editors spent almost two years analyzing documents and interviewing more than 200 poultry workers — most of them Latino, and many in this country illegally. The team found compelling evidence the North Carolina-based company failed to report serious injuries such as broken bones and carpal tunnel syndrome, plant officials often dismissed workers’ requests for medical care, and regulators failed to take action to protect the workers. 

Poultry Firm’s Safety Records Raise Questions About Workers’ Welfare
By Kerry Hall, Ames Alexander, and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. February 10, 2008.
Excerpt: “In an industry rife with danger, house of Raeford Farms depicts itself as a safe place to work. Company records suggest relatively few workers are injured each year as they kill, cut and package millions of turkeys and chickens. But a Charlotte Observer investigation shows the N.C. poultry giant with S.C. plants in West Columbia, Greenville and Hemingway has masked the extent of injuries behind its factory walls.”

Poultry Production Has High Human Cost
By Kerry Hall, Ames Alexander, and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. February 12, 2008.
Excerpt: “Five current and former House of Raeford supervisors and human resources administrators, including two who were involved in hiring, said some of the companies managers know they employ undocumented workers. ‘If immigration came and looked at our files, they take half the plant,’ said Caitlin Davis, a former Greenville plant human-resources employee. “

Painful realities
By Kerry Hall, Ames Alexander, and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. February 13, 2008.
Excerpt: “When injured workers require treatment beyond first aid, employers also must record those injuries on federal logs; too many such injuries can draw scrutiny from workplace safety inspectors. In this environment, medical gatekeepers often face a choice: provide workers with the care they need or save the company money.”

Injured Sent Back to Work
By Kerry Hall, Ames Alexander, and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. February 14, 2008.
Excerpt: “House of Raeford boasts that its Greenville plant has gone more than 7 million hours without a “lost time accident,”meaning no worker has been injured badly enough to miss an entire shift. But according to the company’s own safety logs, Vicente was among at least eight workers at the plant who suffered amputated fingers or broken bones— all during the time the plant claimed to have millions of safe working hours dating back to 2002. Managers have kept the streak alive by requiring injured workers to return to the plant — in some cases hours after medical procedures.“

Congress Takes on the Poultry Industry: Hearings called after newspaper put spotlight on worker safety.
By Kerry Hall, Ames Alexander, Franco Ordonez and Peter St. Onge. The Charlotte Observer. February 17, 2008.
Excerpt: “In a six-part series that began last Sunday, the Observer reported that House of Raeford, which has seven processing plants in the Carolinas, had masked the extent of injuries behind its plant walls. Employees say the company, which has plants in West Columbia, Greenville and Hemmingway, has ignored, intimidated, or fired workers who were hurt on the job.”

5 Supervisors Arrested
The State/McClatchy Newspapers. June 19, 2008.
Excerpt: Federal agents on Wednesday arrested a fifth supervisor at a house of Raeford Farms poultry plant in Greenville as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged immigration violations. On Tuesday, immigration officials arrested four other supervisors after finding what appeared to be false information on employment records kept at the company’s Greenville chicken processing plant, according to Kevin McDonald, first assistant US attorney for South Carolina. 

Poultry plant manager arrested.
The State. July 11, 2008
Excerpt: “A manager at a Greenville poultry factory under federal investigation was arrested Wednesday and charged with telling employees to use falsified immigration documents, according to court filings.”

Five More Workers Face Charges
Franco Ordonez, Kerry Hall, The Charlotte Observer. August 16, 2008. Excerpt: “In a February series on workplace safety in the poultry industry, the Charlotte Observer reported that some house of Raeford managers knowingly employed undocumented workers, according to five current and former supervisors and human resource administrators. Former supervisors have said the plant prefers undocumented workers because they are less likely to question work conditions for fear of losing their jobs or being deported.” 

Three more poultry workers arraigned
The State. Compiled from reports by The Greenville News, and The Charlotte Observer. August 30, 2008
Excerpt: “Three more house of Raeford Farms workers were arranged this week on charges of using fake IDs to work for the company’sGreenville plant, which continues to be at the center of an illegal immigration investigation. The men pleaded not guilty, and detention orders were placed on them because they were in the country illegally. “

Will next raid be at Columbia Farms?
Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. September 6, 2008
Excerpt: “This summer’s arrests of 11 House of Raeford workers in Greenville shocked its S.C. work force. Dozens of workers have since left their jobs. The company is hiring fewer, if any, Latinos and has turned to state prisons to fill its production lines in West Columbia and Greenville.”

Feds Hold 300, Probe Hiring
Ames Alexander, Franco Ordonez, Franco. The Charlotte Observer. October 8, 2008
Excerpt: “Federal authorities conducted an immigration raid at Greenville’s Columbia Farms plant Tuesday, detaining more than 300 workers and searching for evidence of illegal hiring practices. As shifts at the chicken processing plant were changing at about 9 a.m., about 100 agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security raided the facility. When agents arrived, workers began running down hallways crying and screaming, said Herbert Rooker, a janitor who wore a blue band on his wrist, indicating agents had determined he was in the country legally. Rocker said he had to duck into a bathroum to avond a stampede of people.

Gallery: Immigration Raid at Poultry Plant.
Agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security executed a search warrant at the House of Raeford’s Columbia Farms chicken processing plant in Greenville, S.C., Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2008. Federal agents detained more than 300 suspected illegal immigrants in the raid at the plant that has been under investigation for months.(AP Photo/Greenville News, George Gardner)

Poultry Workers Torn Apart by Arrests
The State/Associated Press. October 9, 2008
Excerpt: “A day after the raid, families waited to bear from loved ones at detention centers. Meanwhile, businesses and streets were vacant because those not rounded up stayed home, afraid agents would return.”

Greenville Area Residents Aid Families of Suspected Illegals.
Post and Courier/Associated Press. October 12, 2008.
Excerpt: “The Greenville News reported Sunday that the Alliance for Collaboration with the Hispanic Community and local residents have met to identify lawyers, counselors, educators and interpreters to help the families. They also are trying to raise money and find people to care for the children of the jailed workers.”

Illegal workers set for deportation.
Post and Courier. November 19, 2008. 
Excerpt: “Ten former workers at a Greenville poultry plant who were in the U.S. illegally have pleaded guilty in federal court. Prosecutors said three of the men pleaded guilty Wednesday to false use of a Social Security number to get jobs at the House of Raeford’s Columbia Farms plant.”

Poultry plant fined
The State. November 21, 2008
“North Carolina regulators have cited a chicken processing company for 49 serious safety code violations, many involving hazardous chemicals. The Charlotte Observer reported the $178,000 fine levied against House of Raeford Farms is significant for the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration.”

2009

South Carolina poultry plant manager faces immigration charge
Post and Courier/Associated Press. April 15, 2009.
Excerpt: “Prosecutors say Barry Cronic began hiring illegal immigrants at Columbia Farms in Greenville in 2000, and kept hiring them until a raid last October. The raid found more than 300 people working at the plant who were in the county illegally.”

Poultry Plant Official Pleads Not Guilty
The State. May 15, 2009.
Excerpt: “The personnel manager of a Greenville poultry plant has not guilty to knowingly harboring illegal aliens.”

Feds Indict Columbia Farms
The State/Associated Press. July 17, 2009.
Excerpt: “The company that runs a South Carolina poultry plant knew it man managers were hiring illegal immigrants at a facility rated in October, federal prosecutor said, and an indictment release Thursday.”

Poultry Plant Manager Enters Plea
The State/Associated Press. July 31, 2009.
“Columbia Farms Greenville plant chief pleads, not guilty in immigration case. “

10 Workers Sue Columbia Farms Plant.
The Greenville News. August 1, 2009.
Excerpt: “Ten former employees have sued the Columbia Farms chicken processing plant in Greenville, alleging the company refused to pay overtime that they worked and, in one case, fired a worker after accusing her of faking a workplace injury.”

OSHA Seeks to Get Better Handle on Injuries
By Kerry Hall Singe and Ames Alexander. The Charlotte Observer. October 5, 2009.
Excerpt: “An Observer investigation found that North Carolina-based House of Raeford Farms failed to record some workplace injuries.
The poultry company’s 800-worker plant in West Columbia reported no musculoskeletal disorders over four years. Experts say that’s in-conceivable. MSDs, including carpal tunnel syndrome, are the most common work-related injuries afflicting poultry workers. The company’s Greenville plant has boasted of a five-year safety streak with no lost-time injuries. But the plant kept that streak alive by bringing injured employees back to the factory hours after surgery. House of Raeford says it follows the law and strives to protect workers.”

Poultry Giant to Pay Fine.
By James Alexander and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. November 4, 2009.
Excerpt: Columbia Farms will pay a $1.5 million fine and will be required to change its hiring practices under an agreement that will allow it to avoid a criminal conviction on federal immigration charges. The deal will also allow two indicted managers at the poultry company’s Greenville plant to avoid criminal prosecution, provided they enter a supervised program for a year. The agreement, finalized just hours before the start of the scheduled criminal trial in federal court in Greenville on Tuesday, will give N.C.-based parent company House of Raeford an opportunity to keep its record clean and hold on to valuable government contracts.

2012

North Carolina Poultry Processing Plant Convicted for Knowing Violations of Clean Water Act.
US-DOJ Office of Public Affairs Press Release. August 20, 2012. 
Excerpt:“Publicly owned wastewater treatment plants must be protected from companies that cut corners by discharging wastewater illegally,” said Maureen O’Mara, Special Agent in Charge of of EPA Region 4, which covers the southeast United States including North Carolina.  “The defendants in this case deliberately discharged turkey parts, blood and grease into the wastewater plant for over 16 months, bypassing treatment.  Today’s conviction sends the message that the American public will not tolerate companies putting profit ahead of compliance.”
See also: EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions

Poultry processor, House of Raeford, to pay fine for child labor violations at Teachey, North Carolina plant following US Department of Labor investigation.
Department of Labor press release. October 16, 2012.
Excerpt: “The U.S. Department of Labor has assessed a total of $12,400 in civil money penalties against poultry processor House of Raeford Farms Inc. following an investigation by the department’s Wage and Hour Division that found minors performing hazardous duties prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act’s child labor provisions. “Employers who hire young workers must comply with all federal and state regulations intended to keep our youth safe on the job,” said Richard Blaylock, director of the division’s Raleigh District Office. “This situation is particularly disappointing because the company previously was cited for the same type of violation. It is critical for employers to learn about and comply with the child labor provisions of America’s labor laws.”

Big U.S. poultry processor hit with fines over youth labor
By Ames Alexander and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer/McClathey News.October 17, 2012
Excerpt: “This is not the first time House of Raeford, one of the largest poultry producers in the country. has been caught employing underage workers. During a 2008 immigration raid of the company’s Greenville plant, federal officials found six juveniles, including a 15-year-old, working on the chicken line. One of those underage workers, Lucero Gayton, said in 2008 that she started working the night shift four months after turning 15. While most of her former classmates were playing sports and attending dances, Lucero said she was working 10-hour shifts, wielding a sharp knife, cutting muscles from thousands of freshly-killed chickens.”

2014

Man trapped, injured Tuesday night at chicken processing plant. .
By Anne-Kathryn Flanagan. The State. June 4, 2014.
A man was taken to the hospital after being trapped in a piece of machinery at the chicken processing plant for almost two hours, according to West Columbia Fire Chief Wyatt Coleman.
Injured House of Raeford Worker Recovering After Surgery
WATTPoultry. June 14, 2014
An employee at the House ofRaeford Farms chicken processing plant in West Columbia, South Carolina, wasinjured June 3 in a work-related accident. The 43-year old man was operatingfactory machinery and suffered severe injuries to his right leg, the company stated.

2017

ProPublica: Sold for Parts
The New Yorker: Exploitation and Abuse at the Chicken Plant
By Michael Grabell. Story co-published by ProPublica and The New Yorker. May 1, 2017.
Excerpt: Case Farms built its business by recruiting immigrant workers from Guatemala, who endure conditions few Americans would put up with.
[Note: While House of Raeford is mentioned on a graph in this story, this article is about a different chicken plant, Case Farms].

Pressure mounts on chicken factory to clean up or move
By Al Dozier. Post and Courier. July 16, 2017
Excerpt: The city of West Columbia is losing patience with House of Raeford Farms, a long-standing chicken processing plant on Sunset Boulevard.

Chicken Plant Doesn’t Fit with Riverfront Renaissance.
By Tim Flach. The State. August 27, 2017.
West Columbia’s riverfront has undergone a renaissance, with joggers and cyclists almost daily enjoying the riverwalk and two upscale neighborhoods opening in the last decade. But city leaders and nearby residents worry that continued development will be stymied by an increasingly unpopular neighbor – a 60-year-old chicken processing plant that produces 281 million pounds of meat a year. Residents complain mainly about frequent bad odors and chicken feathers.

Stench near W. Columbia’s popular Riverwalk may improve as city targets plant
By Tim Flach. The State. October 18, 2017. 
The City Council late Monday gave initial approval to a set of restrictions on “offensive” odors that disturb residents, with final adoption expected by mid-November. Complaints about stench from the 60-year-old plant on Sunset Boulevard are increasing as new neighborhoods and businesses develop nearby.Councilman Tem Miles called the proposal a message to the House of Raeford to end problems at the plant. “This is telling them to clean up their act, that the smells are no longer acceptable,” he said.

Why West Columbia chicken plant is getting a reprieve on tougher stench rules
By Tim Flach. The State. November 10, 2017.
West Columbia officials are giving a chicken processing plant more time to stop odors before they crack down on the stench. “We’re pushing it off for a while to see if they can come up with a solution for the problem,” Mayor Bobby Horton said of proposed limits on odors. City Council members gave initial approval Oct. 16 to a set of restrictions on “offensive” odors that disturb residents. They were set to give final approval next Tuesday but that is on hold for a few months, Horton said.

Who Would Pay $27,000 to Work in a Chicken Plant?
By Michael Grabbel. ProPublica. December 28, 2017
Chicken plants have recruited thousands of foreign workers in recent years through a little-known program to fill jobs they say Americans won’t do.

Wilde said immigration agents are questioning why white-collar Koreans would want to pay tens of thousands of dollars to cut chicken. “They are sacrificing themselves for the futures of their children,” she said. “That is no different than any other immigrants in American history.”

Based in Rose Hill, North Carolina — home of the world’s largest frying pan — House of Raeford ranks among Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon as one of the biggest sponsors of green cards. The chicken processor, which employs 4,300 people at seven plants, has applied for 1,900 foreign workers in the last three years, according to Labor Department data. The company also ranks among the most dangerous poultry processors in the country, according to a ProPublica analysis of safety violations, with many workers suffering crippling hand injuries.

2018

With chicken plant odor unders scrutiny, city lodges new way for public to complain.
WIS – TV. May 11, 2018.

Top broiler companies targeted in new lawsuit
WATTPoultry. July 2, 2018.
The largest broiler companies in the United States have again been targeted in a class-action lawsuit, alleging that the companies conspired to manipulate chicken prices.


Kenneth N. Young, Plaintiff, v. Columbia Farms, Inc., a division of House of Raeford Farms, Inc., Defendant.
CaseText: C/A No. 6:17-cv-01340-DCC  09-05-2018 
https://casetext.com/case/young-v-columbia-farms-inc
Plaintiff, an African-American, was employed from February 13, 2013 to October 6, 2016. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that his supervisors regularly greeted him in the mornings with phrases that included, “How ya doing, my Niggas?” Plaintiff filed a complaint with the plant manager, and, while the supervisor stopped using the phrase, tension remained. On or about September 30, 2016, Plaintiff was threatened by another employee wielding a knife, and Plaintiff defended himself to avoid being stabbed. Defendant suspended Plaintiff for three days and then immediately terminated his employment upon his return. He was 61 years old at the time of his termination.

Environmental Integrity Project: Water Pollution from Slaughterhouses
October 19, 2018
Three Quarters of U.S. Meat Processing Plants that Discharge into Waterways Violated their Permits, 2016-2018


2019

Worker Dies in Accident at House of Raeford Plant
October 30, 2019.
WATTPoultry. A contracted worker who was cleaning equipment at the House of Raeford poultry plant in Teachey, North Carolina, was involved in a fatal accident at the plant on October 25.

2020


Meat plant workers say they were fired after protesting risks.
By David Travis Bland. The State. May 7, 2020
About a dozen workers at a chicken processing plant in West Columbia were fired Wednesday after protesting for better pay and working conditions amid the coronavirus, according to some of those who said they were fired. Workers at the House of Raeford chicken plant refused to work under what they consider hazardous conditions without pay to compensate for the increased dangers of the coronavirus, the protesters told The State as they congregated on the sidewalk across Sunset Boulevard from the plant.



Union Investigating Workers’ Complaints at West Columba Chicken Plant
By David Travis Bland. The State. May 9, 2020
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union is investigating complaints and a protest by workers at a chicken processing plant in West Columbia, according to a spokesperson for the union. On Thursday, a protest by a dozen or more workers asking for better pay and working conditions broke out on the sidewalk across from the House of Raeford chicken processing plant, sometimes called Columbia Farms, on Sunset Boulevard. The UFCW’s meat packing division is investigating the origins of that protest and whether the House of Raeford violated the union’s contract or federal labor law, spokesperson Valerie Barnhart said.

Union Files Grievance Against West Columbia Chicken Plant After Workers Fired
By David Travis Bland. The State. May 21, 2020.
The union for workers at a West Columbia chicken processing plant hit the company with an official allegation that the company broke its contract when about a dozen workers were fired after asking for better pay and better working conditions. The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1996 filed the grievance against House of Raeford, which operates the West Columbia poultry plant sometimes called Columbia farms, after a May 6 protest by about a dozen workers. The workers wanted increased pay and better safety measures amid the increased risk of working during the coronavirus outbreak

Lawyers: Firing protesting workers at West Columbia chicken plant likely illegal
By David Travis Bland. The State. May 27, 2020.
Excerpt: “Supervisors at a West Columbia poultry processing facility may have violated federal law when they fired about a dozen employees who raised concerns about the facility’s safety and sought better pay amid the coronavirus outbreak, according to labor lawyers. On May 6, Naesha “Shay” Shelton and June Miller gathered with about a dozen other workers at the House of Raeford chicken processing plant in West Columbia to ask supervisors about getting hazard pay and better working conditions. More than ever, the job that involves cutting raw chicken by hand while standing next to co-workers seemed more dangerous because of the virus, workers said. Hearing news reports about the coronavirus swarming meatpacking workers across the country, Shelton, Miller and their coworkers felt their request for hazard pay and improved safety conditions were reasonable.”

Workers at SC Meat Plants Infected with COVID 19. Many Cases are in the Midlands
By Sammy Fretwell. The State. July 3, 2020.
Excerpt: “According to the agency’s statistics, about 58 percent of the 125 positive cases have occurred at Amick Farms and House of Raeford plants, mostly in the Columbia and Greenville areas. A total of 72 workers at Amick and Raeford facilities have been diagnosed with COVID 19, DHEC says.”

Investigation shows property, massive pile of dead birds in Sampson County site belong to House of Raeford.
WRAL News, Rose Hill, NC. February 9, 2022.
Heather Overton, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, said the dead birds and the site where the birds were temporarily dumped belonged to House of Raeford, a chicken processing company known for its bulk sales.

2022

2023

House of Raeford in NC taking part in USDA’s Modified Line Speed Waiver Program Participation to determine the impact of increased line speeds on worker safety. March 2023.

Latest settlement in poultry price fixing suit brings recovery to $284 million.
By Rachael Oatman. Meat+ Poultry. October 10, 2023.
A class of direct purchasers agreed to a $75 million settlement with two poultry processors involved in a consolidated antitrust lawsuit for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of US broiler chicken.House of Raeford Farms Inc. agreed to pay $27.5 million, and Koch Foods Inc. agreed to pay $47.5 million. With the settlement, the total recovery to date is over $284 million.

2024

House of Raeford reaches settlement and Price fixing case.
By Rachael Oatman. Meat + Poultry. January 5, 2024.
House of Raeford Farms agreed to pay $460,000 in a settlement of a chicken price-fixing lawsuit with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. The attorney began his lawsuit against the house of Raeford and 18 other chicken producers in 2021. He alleged that the companies, which account for 95% of the broiler market, conspired to manipulate prices by restraining production and exchanging competitively sensitive information. 

Complaint: Milton Byrd, Plaintiff, Vs. House of Raeford Farms,, Inc. Defendant.

Violation Tracker, a database on corporate misconduct. House of Raeford entries from 2000 to the present.

_____________________

A Forward Look: What Kind of Future Could “Project Sunny” Buy?

Part One of Two

Project Sunny was not on last night’s City Council agenda, however, a number of speakers came to the podium during the non-agenda portion of the meeting to give statements on the project. As the Aiken community learned only two weeks ago, Project Sunny is the code name for House of Raeford — the chicken slaughterhouse and processing center that is looking to locate at the Exit 22 gateway to the City on US Highway 1 North.

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”:

Click above text to enlarge.

The Overview on Poultry Processing at the OSHA website further elaborates:

“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.

____________________

NEXT: Looking Back at 35 Years of Headlines.

Better Advance Notice: January 2024

Improving the chances for informed scrutiny of local government actions.

by Don Moniak

January 2, 2023

Public hearings require public notice. The latter are predominantly vague, uninformative, and inaccessible; part of a process that stacks the deck against meaningful and impactful citizen involvement in the decisions that affect their lives and their communities.  Without better notice, people are less likely to be able more adequately scrutinize proposals in their neighborhoods and community, and have less of a chance to influence decisions made during public hearings. This Better Advance Notice feature is an imperfect effort intended to help improve the chances for more informed reviews of proposed local government actions. 

Summary of Several Public Hearings Notices
  Powderhouse Connector Road development begins.
   Controversial Gregory Road high density residential development
   Aiken historic district roofs, chimney caps, and fences
   Economic Development Agreement
   Closed Door Meetings
A Note on Public Hearings
Review of Public Notices System
Complete Public Notices for January 2024, as of 12/31/2023

Summary of Several Public Hearings Notifications for January 2024

Powderhouse Connector Project Predevelopment Begins

The Powderhouse Connector Road project is touted as a traffic reduction solution for Whiskey Road. However, as reported in Development Road, the project also involves hundreds of acres of government subsidized residential and commercial development—with upwards of 2,000 new residences tentatively planned for the area.

Before road construction has even begun, approvals of the first major developments are already on the City of Aiken’s public hearing docket. The full details are not yet known due to a practice of the city’s planning department to withhold information until four days before public hearings—more than two weeks after the requisite public notices are published.

On January 9th, the City of Aiken Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on three proposals associated with the connector project:

1. The annexation and single-family attached (townhouses) and detached dwellings of 129 acres of property, presently owned by the James S. Watson Revocable Trust, by CSRA Development Company.

2. The annexation of 13.5 acres of land presently held by five property owners; with 2.78 acres of undefined commercial development (Planned Commercial zoning). 

3. Annexation of public right of ways between Whiskey Road and South Centennial Avenue, SE.

Figure 2: Annexation and development areas. 143-acre parcel bounded by red is ~129 acres for annexation and residential development. Area bounded by green is approximate locations for detention pond construction. 80-acre area parcel bounded by blue includes 13.5 acres for residential development and 2.8 acres of commercial development.
The Controversial Gregory Road Residential Development.

On January 16th, Aiken County Council’s first public hearing involves an an amendment to rezone 54.5 acres along Gregory Road, north of North Augusta, from “RC, Residential Single-Family Conservation to PUD, Planned Use District, Type B.”

The main parcel involved in the disputed rezoning proposal was purchased in 2019 by Gregory Lake LLC for $522,656. The situation is a another case of a development-minded new property owner attempting to create a zoning district island within a larger zone in which hundreds of residents have chosen over the years for their home and property investments (Figure 2). This is a recipe for conflict.

County Council is holding a public hearing because the Aiken County Planning Commission opted on December 21st to not to take action on the proposal. This is the second time a development on this Gregory Road property has been deferred to County Council, the first being in 2019. That project suffered a bureaucratic death when developers failed to submit a required traffic study; but other unreported factors undoubtedly led to its demise.

WJBF News of Augusta’s Nikita Dennis’ report on the Dec 21st ACPC hearing described a packed hearing room and a petition signed by 187 nearby residents. The parcel sizes in that area generally range from 0.4 to 2.0 acres and the area retains a considerable forest canopy. 

The threat of higher density housing that interrupts the existing conservation approach, along with a substantive increase in traffic, are motivating neighbors to speak up. The issue is not whether there should be a housing development, it is how it should fit into the existing neighborhood.

These types of higher density developments within or adjacent to older neighborhoods dominated by roomier properties were met with strong resistance in 2023. In the Aiken area, the most notable objections were to the proposed Henderson Downs (East Richland Avenue) and the May Royal Drive high-density single housing developments. The latter development was detailed in New Shopping Opportunity and Tiny Lots.

The hearing is expected to draw a large and lively crowd, the likes of which this County Council rarely witnesses. As with the vast majority of crowded public meetings, the atmosphere will probably remain civil, but whether outspokenness itself will be viewed as “uncivil” remains to be seen.

Figure 2: Map of project area (bounded in red), showing a continuous Rural Conservation (RC) zoning district which developers are seeking to disrupt into less protective Rural Development (RUD) zoning district.
Aiken Historic District Applications

The Aiken Design Review Board’s (DRB) January 2, 2024, meeting involves several small-scale applications for changes to structures and their surroundings in the historic district. These mini-projects typify the DRB’s workload and are generally devoid of controversy. The DRB’s system treats major developments like Project Pascalis in a similar manner as an application to change out gutters, replace roofs, or alter windows on single homes in the historic district. 

On the agenda for January 2nd are requests for Certificates for Appropriateness for new chimney caps (Figure 3) on a Colleton Avenue home, a “raised seam tin replacement roof with a 14.5″ wide raised seam with a pencil stripe instead of a 16″ wide raised seam” on an indoor tennis court structure on 3rd Avenue, and removal of an existing pergola, extension of a brick paved area surrounding a pool, extension of an existing wood fence, and conducting landscape work including removing five cedar trees at 100 Colleton Avenue SW, the historic Wilcox Hotel.

Figure 3: Hip and Ridge style chimney cap offered as an example by the DRB. 


City of Aiken Development Agreement

Only one public hearing is scheduled for the January 8th Aiken City Council meeting, the Second Readings of the Public Hearing for a six-figure development agreement with McGhee and McGhee LLC for a proposed 12-unit residential development adjacent to the Farmer’s Market on Williamsburg Street (Figure 4). 

While not being applied under the City’s Economic Incentives Ordinance passed in 2018, the conditions are similar—cost sharing for basic infrastructure deemed beneficial to the city. In this case, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds will be used as a subsidy for the development. CDBG funds are also allocated to the controversial Farmer’s Market Parkway redevelopment project that the City has pursued alongside with McGhee and McGhee’s redevelopment effort.

Similar incentives have been approved in recent years for other housing developments, including the Union Street development adjacent to Gyles Park, a water line extension for a Beazly Homes subdivision on Wire Road, and fifty-percent cost sharing agreements for permit fees and utilities infrastructure for two Great Southern Homes subdivisions.

Minimal incentives have been approved for existing retail businesses. An exception was the ordinance authorizing an incentive package for B&W Enterprises in 2019 to assist with the upgrade for the Betsy’s on Park restaurant. In that case, business license fees were reduced by fifty-percent for five years, and the City shared half of all permitting and utility connection fees—approximately $12,500. 

These incentives are available to any business that can promise increased revenue and jobs—such as another grocery store in the northern half of Aiken or any small business seeking to expand. But it is unclear how well incentives are made available, marketed, and monitored.  In response to a FOIA request in early 2023 for a listing and tracking of all incentive agreements to date, the City of Aiken responded that no such record exists—similar to a lack of tracking of city property sales and purchases. 

Figure 4: Memorandum describing development agreement



Closed Public Meetings

Controversy surrounding closed-door Executive Sessions deeply permeated the City of Aiken Mayoral election debates in 2023, with candidate Teddy Milner promising to avoid Executive Sessions whenever possible. As reported in Executive Session Backgrounder, at least one Aiken City Council justification for a closed-door meeting in the past four months was highly suspect.

The Design Review Board has an Executive Session on its Special Called Meeting agenda scheduled for 4:30 pm. The purpose of the closed door meeting is “the receipt of legal advice on pending litigation and other matters covered by the attorney- client privilege.”

More specific information is not provided at the present time, but are mandated prior to the actual session. The subject of the litigation should be identified, and in the spirit of openness any other matters falling under attorney-client privilege should also be identified.

The DRB is advised by Attorney James Holly, who since May 2022 has earned upwards of $100,000 in his part time role as DRB legal counsel. As reported in Project Pascalis Legal Costs, Mr. Holly’s fee is $275 per hour, and he has earned more than enough in the past year of half-time work to fund a full-time staff assistant city attorney. The same advice could also be provided by the City Attorney or the City Solicitor, both of whom would represent a major cost savings to taxpayers.

The matter of attorney-client privilege is itself controversial, as it is overly vague and subject to abuse. The law saws the closed-door session “can be” closed, not that it “shall” or “should be” closed.

At its October 2023 meeting, Aiken County Council took the unusual action of voting to waive attorney-client privilege, and air a legal matter in open session. The effort was led by District 6 Councilman Phil Napier, who proclaimed that “this is taxpayer money, and taxpayers deserve to hear about it.” 

Unfortunately, the eloquent and highly informative five minutes or so of otherwise “confidential and privileged” legal advice provided by County Attorney Brad Farrar is not publicly available due to the fact that County Council refuses to make even audio recordings of its meetings publicly available on the county website. Aiken County Council is the only major public body in Aiken County to not live-stream its proceedings, and routinely approves what can only be described as woefully insufficient and often highly inaccurate meeting minutes.

A Note on Public Hearings

This is the first installment of a bi-monthly to monthly summary of upcoming public hearings by Aiken County public bodies, with an emphasis on City and County Councils and Planning Commissions. The information provided in this report pertains to public notices available as of 12/31/2023.

Public Hearings notifications across Aiken County are characterized by a dearth of pertinent information (Figure 5), often accompanied by poor visual access on legally required neighborhood signage (Figure 5); and are inaccessible to anyone lacking a subscription to the local Post and Courier newspaper outlets. They are also seldom written in plain English.

Detailed information is lacking, and public bodies are loath to provide additional information until one to five days prior to the actual meeting; when agendas and agenda packets are published. Thus, developers have a 3-4 months head start and obtain taypayer-funded coaching by local government staff; while citizens are generally granted less than a week to prepare for a public hearing. The system is as transparent as lightly discolored water.

Figure 5: Typical public hearing published notice with vague descriptions of proposals.
Figure 6: Typical neighborhood signed notice of a City of Aiken Planning public hearing. These notices once omitted the fact that “work sessions” were held prior to the public hearing to discuss development applications. During these work sessions, citizens are only spectators, while developers/applicants can present their case. However, following objections to the former system, work sessions are now part of the notification process.


This notification system strongly favors developers, not citizens whose quality of life, property values, and safety are most affected by proposed developments. Developers meet with government staff well in advance and essentially lobby for their projects; whereas citizens can generally only guess at what is proposed in their neighborhoods—unless more conscientious developers hold advanced community meetings.

Details of applications for development are sometimes available upon request, but can be denied except via a FOIA request. Since government can take 30 days to respond with actual information, this option is impractical. In addition, some public bodies, such as the City of Aiken’s Planning Commission and Design Review Board, conduct “work sessions” where projects are discussed in public but citizens are deprived of the option to even ask questions. In these cases, the citizenry are mere spectators while developers are participants, and the matters discussed are often not repeated during the formal public hearing.

Thus, by the time citizens show up to a public hearing, de facto decisions are often already made. Unless compelling evidence can be provided by citizens, there is slim hope for a change in mind by elected or appointed officals.

In regard to notification meeting agendas and associated documents known as “agenda packets,” all City of Aiken public bodies go above and beyond mere compliance with the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, which mandates 24-hour notice of agendas. The City routinely provides agenda information four days in advance.

At the other extreme, Aiken County Council and the Aiken County Planning Commission barely meet the requirements, with agenda notices generally provided close to the 24-hour deadline. In December 2023, County Council’s meeting notice was provided to interested parties only 15 minutes prior to the 24-hour deadline for compliance with the SC FOIA Open Meetings legal requirements.

Overall, the system does not come close to exemplifying openness in government, and is as “transparent” as lightly discolored drinking water. (Figure 7)

Figure 7: Turbidity is a measure of transparency in drinking water, analogous to political transparency. Even cloudy and lightly discolored water is somewhat transparent. (Photo from westlab.com)

Review of Public Notices System

Public notices for public hearings are mandated by law. A thorough Guide to Public Notices can be found on the South Carolina Press Association’s website.

Citizens can receive notifications of public meetings by requesting them via the appropriate public body. South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, mandates that:

All public bodies shall notify persons or organizations, local news media, or such other news media as may request notification of the times, dates, places, and agenda of all public meetings, whether scheduled, rescheduled, or called, and the efforts made to comply with this requirement must be noted in the minutes of the meetings.” (SC 30-4-80(E)).

However, unless a public body chooses to be more open in its notification process, public notices are only posted in public buildings and published in the local paper of record. In Aiken, notices are generally published in the Aiken Standard. 

The Standard is a subscriber-based newspaper. This means that public notices which are paid for with taxpayer dollars are not publicly available via its classification ads section—even though the paper does freely publish its commercially paid advertisements found in the print edition. .

Local public bodies have chosen not to provide these notices via their public websites. A search of Aiken County, City of Aiken, and City of North Augusta websites did not yield any up to date public notices. The City of North Augusta does have a public notice page, but as of 12/31/2023 it was not up to date.

However, public notices are available via a searchable, free service provided by the South Carolina Press Association simply called South Carolina Public Notices. This monumental resource does require a search, which can be conducted by county, municipality, publication, and date range.

The SCPA’s public notice database covers everything from public hearings to courts announcements to self storage auctions to liquor license applications, and more. In 2023, The Aiken Chronicles will attempt to provide monthly updates on upcoming public hearings in Aiken County via this valuable resource. 

Qualifier: These updates are not guaranteed to be complete. Mid-month updates are expected, but also not guaranteed. Any readers who wish to volunteer their assistance in this effort can write to eurekascresearch@gmail.com.

Complete January 2023 Public Notifications (as of December 31, 2023). 

January 2, 2023: City of Aiken Design Review Board (DRB) (meets regularly on the first Tuesday of each month)

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF AIKEN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

January 2, 2024 At 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 2, 2024, the City of Aiken Design Review Board (the Board) will hold a Regular Meeting and Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building at 111 Chesterfield Street S., Aiken, SC 29801. 

The following items will be considered: 

Approval of Minutes Approval of the Minutes for the Work Session and Regular Meeting on October 3, 2023. 

Approval of the Minutes for the Special-Called Work Session and Meeting on October 12, 2023. 

Approval of the Minutes for the Work Session and Regular Meeting on December 5, 2023. Approval of the Minutes for the Special-Called Work Session and Special-Called Meeting on December 7, 2023. Old Business None New Business Election of Officers Application 

#CERH24-015: Applicant David Grant is requesting approval to remove an existing pergola, extend the brick paved area surrounding the pool, extend the existing wood fence, and conduct landscape work including removing five cedar trees at 100 Colleton Avenue SW (TMP 121-29-09-001). 

Application #CERH24-020: Applicants Michael Milano and Jean Armstrong are requesting approval to replace and add new chimney caps at 418 and 426 Colleton Avenue SE (TMP 121-09-07-005). 

Application #CERH22-042-AMENDMENT: Applicant James Brodie is requesting approval to amend the Certificate of Appropriateness for approval of a raised seam tin replacement roof with a 14.5″ wide raised seam with a pencil stripe instead of a 16″ wide raised seam at 125 Third Avenue SW (TMP 105-12-17-009). TAX28-AMENDMENT: Applicant James Brodie is requesting approval to amend the Certificate of Appropriateness for approval of a raised seam tin replacement roof with a 14.5″ wide raised seam with a pencil stripe instead of a 16″ wide raised seam at 125 Third Avenue SW (TMP 105-12-17-009). 

Special-Meeting (Executive Session) At 4:30 p.m., the Board will hold a Special-Called Meeting in Room 309 of the Municipal Building, at which time an Executive Session will be held on matters allowed by S.C. Code Section 30-4-70(a)(2) of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, including the receipt of legal advice on pending litigation and other matters covered by the attorney-client privilege. 

Work Session At 5:30 p.m. the Board will hold a Work Session in Room 315 of the Municipal Building, at which time there will be a brief preliminary review of matters on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Individuals needing special assistance or sign interpreter for the meeting, Please notify the Planning Department 48 hours prior to the meeting. Updates and other additional information may be viewed via the City of Aiken Website. Contact: City of Aiken Planning Department (803) 642-7608 December 30, 2023.

January 8, 2023: Aiken City Council (meets on second and fourth Mondays of each month):

PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Ordinance 71276 of the City of Aiken, the following ordinance will be considered for Public Hearing at the meeting of Council to be held on Monday, January 8, 2024, at 7:00 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 111 Chesterfield Street S in the Council Chambers. The meeting will be available for public viewing via the City of Aiken YouTube channel. TITLE 1. 

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF AIKEN TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH MCGHEE REDUX, LLC. SUMMARY 1. An ordinance approving a development agreement with McGhee Redux, LLC for Market Row on Williamsburg Street SE. Individuals needing special assistance or sign interpreter to participate in the meeting, please notify the City Manager’s Office 48 hours prior to the meeting. Sara B. Ridout, City Clerk December 29 & January 2, 2024.

January 9, 2023. City of Aiken Planning Commission (meets on second Tuesday of each month).

PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 9, 2024 The City of Aiken Planning Commission will hold a regular meeting on January 9, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located on the 3rd floor of the Municipal Building, 111 Chesterfield Street South, at which time the following will be considered: 

Election of Officers 

Application #24-20011 

Annexation of 129.23 acres, a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr. Revocable Trust. 

Application #24-22004 Planned Residential (PR) Concept Plan for single-family attached and detached dwellings on 129.23 acres, being a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr. Revocable Trust. 

Application #24-20012 Annexation of 13.54 acres, being a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, and 2.78 acres being a portion of tax parcel #122-19-01-001 (po), Athol Avenue, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr., Mary Ann Fry, Fred Douglas McLean, Debra Murphy and Kathy M. McLean. 

Application #24-23005 Planned Commercial (PC) Concept Plan for commercial development on 13.54 acres, being a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, and 2.78 acres being a portion of tax parcel #122-19-01-001(po), Athol Avenue, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr., Mary Ann Fry, Fred Douglas McLean, Debra Murphy and Kathy M. McLean. 

Application #24-20010 Annexation of Public Street Right-of-Way between Whiskey Road and South Centennial Avenue SE; TMP #122-18-05-013 and portions of #122-14-01-003, 122-15-01-004122-19-01-001 and 122-18-05-014; 219Harco Drive, 2301 S. Centennial Avenue, Powderhouse Road, Athol Avenue and 2148 Oak Grove Road. 

Application #22-23001 Planned Residential (PR) Concept Plan amendment to amenity area on Bergamot Parkway, TMP #122-13-02-036, by Mark at Woodford SC, LLC. 

Application #22-23003 Planned Commercial (PC) Concept Plan amendment to signage at 140 Jefferson Davis Highway, TMP #087-18-11-002, by Drayton Parker Companies, LLC. 

Proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance Sections 5.2.3.C.2, 5.2.3.D, 5.2.3.I.2, 6.1.3.D and 6.1.3.E, as applicable to the Design Review Board. 

(These Zoning Ordinance Sections currently read as follows:

5.2.3.C.2: Applications for a Certificate shall be accompanied by the following unless waived by the Secretary or otherwise specified on the application form provided by the Board.

5.2.3.D. Public Hearing and Public Notice. For any Certificate of Appropriateness application that it must consider, the Board shall conduct a public hearing not later than 30 days following receipt of a completed application form accompanied by all required information and documents. Public notice of each such public hearing shall be given at least seven days prior to the hearing by the posting of a sign by the City on each street frontage of the subject property clearly visible to the public stating the date, time, and place of the public hearing.

5.2.3.I.2: Appeals: From the Board. Any property owner, City official, or other person aggrieved by and seeking relief from any final decision of the Board on an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness may appeal that decision to the Circuit Court pursuant to Section 6-29-900, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, by filing a petition with the court within 30 days of the filing of the written decision of the Board with the Secretary.

6.1.3.D: Application Deadlines.

1. Applications for which no public hearing is required shall have no application deadlines.

2. All applications for which a public hearing is required shall be completed and submitted to the appropriate official prior to the meeting at which the permit or approval will be considered in accordance with the following table unless waived by the Planning Director.)

January 16, 2023. Aiken County Council

There will be public hearings at the regular meeting of County Council on Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 7:00 pm, in the County Council Chambers, Third Floor, Aiken County Government Center, 1930 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 concerning the following matters:

1. Ordinance to Approve an Amendment to the Aiken County Official Zoning and Development District Atlas to Rezone Tax Parcel 004-19-01-004 and a portion of Parcel 004-19-06-003 (approximately 54.5 acres) located on Gregory Lake Road (S-582), North Augusta, SC in Council District 5 from RC, Residential Single-Family Conservation to PUD, Planned Use District, Type B. 

2. Ordinance to Approve an Amendment to the Aiken County Official Zoning and Development District Atlas to Rezone Tax Parcel 122-13-08-024 (approximately 0.24 acres) located on Whiskey Road (SC-19), Aiken, SC in Council District 7 from RC, Residential Single-Family Conservation to LD, Limited Development District. 

3. Ordinance to Declare Certain Property, Identified as Aiken County Tax Parcel #050-16-05-002, and Located at the Intersection of Highland Drive and Jefferson Davis Highway, as Surplus and to Authorize Its Transfer to The Graybill Company, LLC. 

4. Ordinance to Amend Sec. 2-63 “Legislative Action” in the Aiken County, South Carolina Code of Ordinances. 

5. Ordinance to Confirm Responsibility for Maintenance of Streets, Ways and Bridges Annexed by City or Town Councils. Members of the Public who attend the Council Meeting need to use the rear entrance of the building. Individuals needing special assistance or sign interpreter to participate in the meeting, please notify the County Administrator’s Office at (803) 642-2012 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. December 30, 2023.