Monthly Archives: September 2022

Project Pascalis 2022, September 2022

Overlooked Opportunities: Looking Back at the May/June 2021 Project Pascalis Request for Proposals

5 Comments

The second rendition of the City of Aiken’s $100 million plus downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis might be ending soon. If so, the future of seven properties collectively known as the Pascalis Properties will be subjected to intense public scrutiny.

A review of the limited information pertaining to the bidding and proposal process that resulted in Project Pascalis Part II provides some insights into the possible future of the Pascalis Properties. Specifically, the best available information indicates that: 

  • Hotel Aiken/Holley House-only redevelopment option remains a strong option, and a successful hotel or residential complex can emerge in the absence of a garage and conference center; 
  • Two developers interested in a hotel-only option were rejected primarily on the basis of their limited interest, in spite of the AMDC considering them “experienced,” “successful,” and “impressive;” and
  • The City of Aiken’s expectations of recovering its $9.6 investment in commercial downtown properties is unrealistic. 
The Short Life of the Project Pascalis, Part I

When the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) announced the existence of Project Pascalis  on March 17, 2021,  three firms were involved with an effort to consolidate downtown Aiken properties in the pursuit of a large-scale demolition and redevelopment effort: 

  • Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC; represented by local investor and attorney Ray Massey; 
  • GAC, LLC; the Pascalis project developer represented by local investor and developer Weldon Wyatt; 
  • WTC Investments, LLC; a Wyatt family firm that served as the property procurement arm of GAC, LLC. 

As reported in part three of Project Pascalis Includes the Alley, one of the property negotiators for WTC Investments was Ray Massey. The properties controlled by his Aiken Alley Holdings investor group were fully integrated into the project design. 

During the first week of May, 2021, the first Project Pascalis development effort collapsed when Weldon Wyatt’s GAC, LLC abruptly withdrew from the project.  To salvage the endeavor, the AMDC pursued an option in its Cost Sharing Agreement with GAC to take control of properties under contract to GAC via WTC Investments.  The Aiken Chamber of Commerce “advanced” the AMDC $135,000 to hold Wyatt’s $9.5 million of purchase and sale agreements with the Shah and Anderson families under an “assignment” status.  

Pascalis Project Part II Begins

After the first of the property assignments was completed on May 14th, the AMDC pursued a private Request for Proposals (RFP) with select developers, a process that is alleged to have violated South Carolina Community Development law. (1)

Between May 19-21, 2021, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission secretly sent out a request for proposals to select developers without any public advertisement  of the RFP as required by SC Community Development law. The deadline for proposals was set for June 7, 2021.  The following three items — Pascalis summary ProjectPascalis_Option2a_05.03.21 (002), and Pascalis footprint — were sent, as follows, to developers the AMDC chose as candidates:

Pascalis summary, a two-page background document with “preliminary details” that defined the project as involving the following elements: 

  1. Limited service hotel offering 100 +/- rooms (Privately constructed, owned, operated )
  2. Conference Center of not less than 25,000 square feet with full banquet facilities to include commercial kitchen (to be owned and operated by the AMDC)
  3. Parking garage servicing both the hotel and conference center with no fewer than 400 spaces (to be owned by the AMDC)
  4.   If the site allows and it proves economically feasible, 60 +/- residential units wrapping the parking structure. These may be rental or owner-occupies units. (Privately funded, owned, operated)

Among the preliminary details was an offer of a half-acre of Newberry Street for development, and a description of Pascalis properties as being under AMDC control: 

“ The Aiken Municipal Development Commission holds contracts to purchase roughly 1.6 acres in the downtown and anticipates realigning the Newberry Street frontage in the project area to make an additional .5 acres available for the redevelopment.” 

ProjectPascalis_Option2a_05.03.21 (002), a scaled back conceptual plan developed the first week of May, 2021 by GAC/AMDC contractor Boudreaux Group as Wyatt was threatening to exit to project. 

Whereas the original Option 2 involved four to five-story residential buildings flanking The Alley on properties controlled by, or being pursued by, Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC, Option 2A involved only properties under control by the AMDC. Figure 1 illustrates the difference between the two projects. 

Figure 1. Option 2 incorporated property controlled or sought by Aiken Alley Holdings; 
Option 2A only incorporated property controlled by the AMDC and the Aiken Chamber of Commerce. 

Pascalis footprint, a one-page map on Aiken County’s public.net land records database, produced on May 17th, 2021. 

Choosing a Developer

On June 8, 2021, the AMDC met in closed-door, Executive Session for one hour to discuss the proposals. A June 10th memo from Tim O’Briant cautioning about a lobbying effort by one developer provides some insight to the process: 

“In all cases, please refer any questions about the status of the selection or the process to me. While I am pursuing discussions with the single selected developer, I will not be informing other firms of that and until late next week at the earliest. I know I don’t need to remind you that any discussion of what occurred in executive session could be very damaging to the process.” 

A review of seven proposals from the May-June, 2021 solicitation effort was summarized by AMDC officials in an undated (see footnote 1) table that was not released (in response to a FOIA request) until March, 2022; and remains partially redacted. Titled “Pascalis offers comparison_Redacted,” the table (Figure 2) contains brief assessments of seven proposals with the following ranked elements: 

  • Completeness of the proposal
  • Financial contribution and Land Purchase price
  • Experience with similar projects
  • Local Ties
  • Enforceability of the offer
(Figure 2: AMDC’s Redacted Summary Table Ranking Project Pascalis proposals. June 2021) 

  1. The Raines Group Proposal? 

The highest ranked proposal was third from the top; it was described as “exceptionally complete” and comments on its “local ties” are the most extensive.

Likely review of Raines Co proposal.

The proposal is most likely to have originated from the Raines Group of Florence, SC, based on the following facts: 

a. Raines Group was eventually named as the lead developer within the Pascalis development firm RPM Development Partners, which stands for Raines, (Lat) Purser, and (Ray) Massey—who is also the firm’s agent. RPM Development Partners registered for business in South Carolina on October 27, 2021—one month after Massey helped organize an AMDC trip to Florence, SC for a meeting with Raines and a tour of their properties.  Massey and local investors were also credited by the AMDC for having assembled the Raines-led team.

b. The bidder, described as having “nationwide experience,” offered: “to purchase the AMDC properties in November, 2021 for $9.5 million in exchange for an agreement that AMDC would purchase the property back if no project proceeds due to a lack of action by City/AMDC after 12 months of due diligence.” 

Ray Massey had full knowledge of the AMDC/Chamber of Commerce’s purchase price, as he had helped negotiate the original purchase and sale agreements and also was the agent for WTC Investments, LLC when it transferred control of downtown property purchase and sale agreements to the Aiken Chamber of Commerce. No other firm came close to offering the exact purchase price for the seven properties in question. 

c.  The 12-month deadline in the proposal is similar to a deadline in the reported Purchase and Sale Agreement with RPM Development Partners.

While the AMDC did purchase the Pascalis properties on November 9, 2021, a Master Development Agreement (MDA) was being negotiated in October, 2021. (2) It is likely that negotiations to sell the properties to RPM fell through, leading to a December 3, 2021 AMDC announcement of a Purchase and Sale agreement between the AMDC and RPM Development Partners. In the announcement, the AMDC wrote: 

“The initial Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) announced today gives the AMDC and RPM until no later than Summer 2022 to come to terms on a mutually beneficial Master Development Agreement.”

2. The Hotel Only Developer

One unknown developer offered only to purchase the hotel at a “deeply discounted price of $1.0 million,” and presented no interest in the AMDC-required apartments, parking garage, and conference center. Since the bidder was described as a “successful hotel developer with a good portion of successful projects,” it is evident that a conference center and garage are unnecessary elements for a new or renovated Hotel Aiken. 

The AMDC rejected this proposal to only work on renovation or replacement of Hotel Aiken.

The $1.0 million offer closely matches Aiken County’s 2021 land appraisal for the Hotel Aiken, supporting the conclusion in How Much Project Pascalis Can Aiken Taxpayers Stand? that the value of the property purchased by the AMDC is equal to the land value minus the demolition value—at least perhaps in the mind of one successful hotel developer. 

This developer received a score of only 47%. 

3. The Hotel Renovation to Apartments Developer. 

A third developer proposed to “pay market value for current hotel Aiken site only,” and a “renovation and conversion to apartments.” This earned them a 0 out of 3 score in the “completeness of proposal” category. 

The AMDC rejected this proposal to only work on the Hotel Aiken property; and redacted information that is likely not exempt under FOIA.

This developer was described as having: 

“an impressive resume of redevelopment projects, adaptive reuse, (redacted words) (but no) direct experience with large scale new construction of a similar project.” 

This developer received a score of only 40%, despite rating 3 of 3 in the “local ties” department. The developer may involve John Gumpert of Camden Partners, who is spearheading efforts to repurpose the old Aiken County Hospital; and the old Vaucluse and Warrenville Mills in Aiken County’s Horse Creek Valley. 

Although Gumpert has denied any involvement in the Hotel Aiken, this proposal indicates at least one unidentified developer believed the Hotel Aiken was suitable for renovation. Because the proposal remains sealed and publicly unavailable, any possible preference for historic preservation tax credit funding is unknown. 

Conclusions

The AMDC’s ill-advised, and probably illegal, May 2021, Request for Proposals does provide insights into the possible future of the Pascalis properties.  Unsealing all the proposals, which have been blocked from public view through the excessive and possibly illegal use of SC Freedom of Information Act exemptions, can only add value to the upcoming dialogue and debate. (3)

First, two developers with interest only in the Hotel Aiken property were rejected largely due to that limited interest.  At least two highly experienced, successful developers offered Hotel Aiken-only proposals — an indication that industry experts believe apartments or a hotel could be built on the site of the Hotel Aiken in the absence a conference center, apartments, or a parking garage. 

Second, the AMDC solicitation process was strongly biased towards demolition and reconstruction.  As a result, no consideration was given to the prospect of funding through historic preservation tax credits. 

Third, only one developer expressed interest in paying $9.6 million for the Pascalis properties. In the end, no final, hard offer occurred and the AMDC and City of Aiken were left as downtown commercial property owners. The likelihood of the city recovering its costs to date appears to be exceedingly low. 

________________

References and Footnotes: 

(1) This entire process occurred behind closed doors, in spite of, or perhaps because of, the fact the project was announced with great fanfare on March 17, 2021. No further information on this solicitation process has been released by the AMDC, which has claimed since May of this year that the solicitation process remains open. Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh has denied the release any correspondence that accompanied the solicitation, or any other information related to the original solicitation. 

The only additional information that has been released is a December 13, 2021 Request for Proposals that was publicly advertised in the Aiken Standard on December 13, 2021; ten days after the AMDC announced the selection of its preferred developer for Project Pascalis. The ad ran again on December 20, 2021, and the deadline date for proposals was December 22, 2021. 

Allegations of violations of South Carolina Community Development Law can be read on Pages 44-46 in Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al:

https://aikenchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/20220705_Filed_Summons_and_Complaint.pdf

(2) The October, 2021 invoice from Project Pascalis project manager Capstone Services indicates negotiations on a Master Development Agreement with the selected developer.

From:
AMDC Financial Binder

(3) The redactions in the review table are now six months old. Several of the candidates received very low scores and were rejected by the AMDC. There is little to no justification for applying the SC FOIA exemptions #5 and #9, as City of Aiken City Manager and Record Custodian Stuart Bedenbaugh has maintained.

SC FOIA records exemption #5: “Documents of and documents incidental to proposed contractual arrangements and documents of and documents incidental to proposed sales or purchases of property”; and

SC FOIA records examption #9: “Memoranda, correspondence, documents, and working papers relative to efforts or activities of a public body and of a person or entity employed by or authorized to act for or on behalf of a public body to attract business or industry to invest within South Carolina;”

This process was conducted using public funds, and the records created during the process should be publicly available to allow for a fully informed public debate.

Estimates of Developer names.


As reported in The AECOM Plan, Andy Cajka is President of Southern Hospitality Group, which was recruited during the collapse of Project Pascalis, Part I.:

The first Pascalis project collapsed in early May when Weldon Wyatt withdrew from the deal. As part of the negotiations to salvage the deal, Mayor Osbon met with Weldon Wyatt and Greenville based developer Andy Cajka, President of Greenville, SC based Southern Hospitality Group. A memorandum from Tim O’Briant to AMDC members Jameson, Chris Verenes, and Chairman Keith Wood described the meeting: 

“The Mayor and Weldon met with Andy on Monday, I was out of town, apparently shg hotels will possibly deliver a LOI (letter of intent) regarding the hotel this week. The mayor agreed the meeting went well and Andy was engaged in making a deal that would be privately funded based on the public dollars and incentives driving the project. Mayor indicates he deferred question about Friday negotiations and City’s position on deal points citing my absence and his lack of information on the subject.”



September 2022, Uncategorized

High Wildfire Danger Before the Storm

1 Comment

by Don Moniak
September 28, 2022

Today the South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC) issued a media advisory urging “vigilance against wildfire as Hurricane Ian approaches,” and for people to postpone any outdoor burning.  The Forestry Commission is the only state agency responsible for suppressing all wildfires in unincorporated areas of the state—-an area of nearly thirteen million acres.

The risk of an uncontrolled wildfire might be the last thing on the minds of South Carolinians listening to a tropical storm forecast and watching scenes of Hurricane Ian battering Florida. But as SCFC Chief Darryl Jones pointed out in the news release, dry fuel conditions coupled with high winds have created  a “window of danger (that) might be short, but it is also very pronounced.” 

The second half of September was abnormally dry, with the National Weather Service reporting less than one-tenth of an inch of rain in the past two weeks across most of South Carolina and Georgia. 

Second half of September 2022 abnormally dry with less than one-tenth inch of rain across most of GA and SC

One result are small, woody forest fuels as dry as levels found in arid portions of the Western U.S. “One hundred hour fuels,” defined as woody debris between one and three inches in diameter, are now generally below fifteen percent across South Carolina. 

100 hour fuels below 15% in South Carolina

Fuel moisture for “Ten Hour Fuels,” which are twigs from a quarter inch to an inch, is as low as levels measured in the Great Basin and West Texas. “Ten Hour Fuels” moisture also is an indicator of the dryness of the more combustible pine litter layer.

Fuel moisture for ten-hour fuels as low in South Carolina as levels measured in the Great Basin and West Texas

Adding to the dry fuel conditions are two days of increasingly strong winds ahead of the storm and below normal relative humidity. Wednesday’s minimum relative humidities dipped below 25 percent, and Thursday is forecast in the high thirties to low forties. Fifteen to thirty mile per hour winds are forecast prior to the advent of any moisture. 

National Weather Service Fire Weather Forecast, Columbia Station.

Anybody igniting a fire in anticipation of rain could easily burn down a home or two long before any rain arrives to help control a wildfire.  South Carolina residents are well-advised to heed the fire warning from the Forestry Commission.

________________


References

Fuels and fire danger information is available at the National Interagency Coordination Center, https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/index.htm

South Carolina Forestry Commission fire information is available at:

https://www.scfc.gov/protection/fire-burning/

City Government, City Parks and Recreation, September 2022

Divesting of Parks and Privatizing Open Space

1 Comment

Is a City Park Near You a Candidate for Closure or Sale? 

by Don Moniak

September 26, 2022

The latest vision for the City of Aiken’s Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (PRT) Department is “ a community connected through people, parks and programs.” Yet, the latest plan for the Aiken PRT involves closing parks in low income neighborhoods and continuing to privatize open space.

Divestment, privatization, and/or closure of some parks is one of the recommendations in the recently approved “City of Aiken Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Need Assessment and Strategic Plan,” (PRT plan) completed by consulting Clemson University Professor Bob Brookover.  Although the plan was adopted by City Council on August 8, 2022, it remains publicly unavailable except within a 245-page City Council meeting agenda packet. No news release accompanied the approval. 

The PRT Plan is Quietly Approved 

During the late “petition and requests” stage of its August 8, 2022 meeting (1),  Aiken City Council adopted both the PRT plan and “The Tourism Strategic Plan,” completed by marketing consultant Bandwagon.  Recommendations in the PRT plan include: 

  • Raise the Hospitality Tax from one percent to two percent; 
  • Demolish Odell Weeks recreation center and replace with new facilities;
  • Prioritize bicycle paths and greenway trails; and 
  • Consider divesting of some neighborhood parks and facilities—-with Aiken County Farmers Market, Charleston Street Playground, Gyles Park, Hammond-Williams Park, Sumter Street Park, and Perry Memorial Park identified as specific candidates.

The bulk of the data in the plan derives from an online survey and focus groups, both of which reflect the purpose of the assessment: 

“To solicit public input regarding the parks and recreation facility, program, and service needs  of residents living within the municipality in order to develop recommendations that will  guide the provision of parks and recreation programs, facilities , and services for the next five to seven ( 5-7) years.”

The PRT plan is long on perspectives pertaining to future needs, but the questions provoking those questions were generalist in nature and nonspecific. Nobody was asked “would you like to see some neighborhood parks close?” The report contains no data on park usage. 

The report is equally deficient in existing recreation-use data. The term “underutilized” is never quantified. Few of the recommendations have any clear basis in the report; and some are contradicted by the evidence presented. Most notable is the recommendation to “divest of” some neighborhood parks and facilities. According to the opinion survey: 

  • 62 percent of respondents felt neighborhood parks (2) are of high importance; and 
  • 83 percent of respondents felt  passive open space (which should include lightly used parks) are of high importance. 
 Closing or Selling City Parks 

In spite of the positive support for parks and open space, park closures are on the horizon. At the August 8, 2022 meeting, Councilman Ed Woltz commented: 

“There’s a discussion of two or three small parks that need to be closed are we looking into that or is that just paper?”

PRT Director Jessica Campbell replied: 

“We are still considering a park. I think we are hoping to get some renovations underway at Smith-Hazel park within this current budget year and once we feel that we’ve got those parks to where they need to be then we’ll look at closing some that are within proximity that may not be utilized.” 

More than “two or three small parks”—large parks to a child— are under consideration for closing. The plan recommends evaluating every park and specifies seven properties as candidates for closure and/or privatization: 

  • Five North Aiken parks; all in Council District One; 
  • Aiken County Farmer’s Market; and 
  • Centennial Open Space park on Pine Log Road
Parks under consideration for closure, circled in red. #8: Charleston Street Playground; #14: Gyles Park; #15: Hammond-Williams Park, #23: Perry Memorial Park. 
(Map source: The Park Bench). 

Pages 22-23 of the plan read: 

“Evaluate all neighborhood and other parks to determine if there are parks and facilities that you should divest of. Some parks are placed in DOT right of way and/ or property that  is not owned by City of Aiken. Consideration should be given as to future of these facilities: Sumter Street Park, Gyles Park, Charleston Street Park, Perry Park, Aiken County Farmers Market. 

“Hammond- Williams Park is an underutilized park that should be converted to a passive park or sold. Investment in neighborhood park amenities should be focused at Smith- Hazel, located just 0.8 miles apart from Hammond- Williams. Additionally, PRT maintains Centennial Park, another underutilized property consisting of 3.3 acres of greenspace that requires weekly mowing and litter control. Consider selling to adjacent apartment community.” 

This information was not further discussed or conveyed to the audience, and a discussion turned to tourism. Before the vote, Aiken resident Laverne Justice stood up and initiated another short discussion: 

Ms. Justice: “Which parks are they considering closing here once they renovate some other parks.” 

PRT Director Cambpell: The park mentioned in the needs assessment is specifically Hammond-Williams Park and that would be either either maintaining as green space as a passive park. There was a recommendation that we could sell property but I think our intent  right now is to have it as a passive green space.” 

City Manager Bedenbaugh: “Meaning no equipment, would still be maybe some benches,, but…” 

PRT Director Philips: “removal of the playground equipment, sure.” 

Ms. Justice: “You want to say the location?” 

PRT Director Philips: “Hammond-Williams is off Beaufort Street and it’s less than one mile away from Smith-Hazel Park.” 


Hammond-Williams Park playground is targeted for closure. (Photo; Don Moniak)
Hammond-Williams Park at Orangeburg Street and Beaufort Avenue is targeted for sale, closure, or conversion to “passive open space.”
(Photo: Don Moniak)

Professor Brookover has written or assisted with at least seven other Parks and Recreation strategic plans in South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Recommendations to close or sell off parks and open space are not only uncharacteristic in his other plans, they are absent. The word “divest” is not found in the Greer, Greenville County, Mt Pleasant, or Summerville Master Plans prepared by Brookover. 

The City of Aiken already divested four acres of open space adjacent to Kalmia Hills Park earlier this year, property that had been donated for recreation use in the early 1970s by Mattie C. Hall (3). 

The PRT Plan’s arbitrary criteria for closing or selling parks and facilities include:

  • On DOT right of ways (which are actually Parkways);
  • Not owned by the City; and
  • Less than one mile from another park

By this standard, Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department can easily close and/or sell several Northside parks and centralize its efforts at Smith-Hazel. This is a pattern similar to South Augusta/Hepzhibah, where Diamond Lakes Regional Park sits amidst an urbanized landscape devoid of neighborhood parks. 

Hammond-Williams Park is a 2.5 acre park that is actually part of a larger, city-owned 5.8 acre parcel covering both sides of Beaufort Street and lying adjacent to another sixty acres of city property where the municipal dump once operated. Hammond-Williams Park is considered “underutilized,” a subjective designation that is never quantified in the PRT plan. It is already surrounded by private “passive open space” farmland to the South, the former city dump property to the east—-once a candidate for a larger park, and a lower income neighborhood to the north. It is the only park of the five at risk of “divestment” that the city could sell. 

Aerial View of Hammond-Williams Park (left side, Source: Aiken County)

Charleston Street Playground is located on 1.1 acres along Colleton Avenue—just beyond the city’s Arboretum—on the east end of the Colleton Avenue Parkway. It is central to densely populated, well-shaded neighborhoods interspersed by pockets of poverty among the most dire in Aiken County.  Even though a sign declares it was created through a Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant, by PRT Plan standards it has two strikes against it: 

  • not owned by the City. 
  • within one mile of another park (Odell Weeks). 
Charleston Street Playground at Colleton Avenue and Charleston Street (Photo; Don Moniak)
Charleston Street Playground (Red Circle) is central to a large residential district. (Source: Aiken County)
Charleston Street Playground sits on one acre and provides two play areas, two basketball courts and a shaded picnic area.
(Photo: Don Moniak)

Gyles Park  is situated on 1.25 acres of land owned by located at the edge of downtown next to Aiken’s relatively new Train Museum.
The Park property was donated to the city in 1912 and “Rededicated to Negro Children” in 1953–when it was described as “spacious.”

Although the Museum is known to be “underutilized,” it remains a favored facility. This year the legislature awarded nearly one million dollars from the plutonium setttlement fund for the museum. 

Gyles Park at Park Avenue and Union Street. (Photo: Jacob Ellis)
Gyles Park (in blue) Aerial View. (Source: Aiken County)


From: Aiken Standard . October 27, 1953


Gyles has two strikes against it: 

  • less than 0.8 miles from Smith-Hazel park; 
  • not owned by the city. 

While its proximity to the train museum should be viewed as a positive by a railroad company and a city trying to promote the museum; in reality it is likely viewed as a negative because some of the city’s homeless residents tend to gather there during the day. 

Perry Memorial Park occupies 24 acres park of land owned by the Aiken School District and two smaller parcels on city-owned land where a disc-golf course is located. The park has a well-used football practice field, is ideal for soccer, and has been the scene of the several annual community events: annual Shoutfest gospel festival, Easter Egg hunts, and cookouts. 

Use for community events is threatened by the city’s push to turn drive-to Generations Park into the top destination and events park—where Shoutfest was moved in 2019 after eleven years at Perry Park. Yet, city officials added a restroom to the park just years ago, and own a small parcel where the improvement sits; so its position on the list is somewhat inexplicable. 

Perry Memorial Park at Williamsburg Street and Abbeville Avenue.
Shoutfest Gospel Festival, 2015 (Source: VisitAikenSC.Com)

Schofield Middle School and Perry Memorial Park, Aerial View. Sumter Street disc-golf course in green, Smith-Hazel Park in blue.
(Source: Aiken County)

The strikes against it are: 

  • not owned by the City
  • close to Smith-Hazel

Sumter Street Park is not listed on the PRT website, but is either the disc golf course identified within Perry Park and on City-owned land, or the basketball court at Stoney-Gallman homes in the Sumter Street Parkway. 

At first glance, the inclusion of the iconic, historic Aiken County Farmer’s Market is the strangest of the divestment/closure candidates. Whereas shopping for locally grown food at an outside market was not on the PRT’s opinion survey’s local activity list, visits to farmer’s markets outside of Aiken were measured. 

The strike against the the PRT managed Farmer’s Market is that it sits in the Williamsburg Street Parkway and is not city owned. It may also have a perceived higher value in private hands. 

The real wild card is the nearly three-year old gentrification/redevelopment proposal for Williamsburg Street, which poses a risk of privatization for management, if not ownership. No official, legal plan has been presented and no public hearings have been held, but a conceptual plan was issued in 2021. This past week the Aiken Economic Development Commission placed a new sign announcing big things to come. 

 In the AMDC-commissioned report: “Site Analysis and Due Diligence for Williamsburg Street Redevelopment,” (4) the desired future condition of the Farmer’s Market area is radically different. A mixed use shopping and residential district is envisioned where there are now abandoned structures. The AMDC spent $175,000 purchasing three vacant properties adjacent to the market in March 2021, and hopes to convert it to multi-family housing over retail.

The redevelopment concept envisions a hip, happening place; bustling both day and night. The AMDC report portrays the present-day Farmer’s Market area as a bleak, deserted landscape; and provides no current usage or visitation data.

From AMDC Report: Site Analysis and Due Diligence for Wiliamsburg Street Redevelopment.
From: AMDC report: Site Analysis and Due Diligence for Williamsburg Street Redevelopment. Future visions all show active scenes.
From: AMDC report: Site Analysis and Due Diligence for Williamsburg Street Redevelopment.
Current photos all show empty street scenes in winter.
From: VisitAikenSC.com. AMDC portrayal of modern Farmer’s Market contains no scenes of people.

Conclusions: The City of Aiken is likely to move forward on closing, selling, or privatizing some of its parks and facilities. From Project Pascalis to Parks, Recreation and Tourism, the current city administration has operated in a stealth mode to avoid scrutiny of its plans. Just as recreation fees were raised without any public discussion, the  Parks and Recreation plan adopted by City Council includes a plan to close neighborhood parks that escaped public scrutiny and defies what little public input that did occur.  Citizens seeking to keep parks open will need to keep close tabs on Parks and Recreation plans. 

UPDATE: October 11, 2002: Aiken City Parks to Remain Open

___________________

References and Background Information

(1) August 8, 2022 Aiken City Council Meeting. 

Agenda is at: 

https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2747641&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

The PRT Plan begins on Page 130. 

Meeting Minutes are at: 

https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2752803&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

Video discussion, which begins at minute 48, is at: 

(2) The report also has some self-created bias, such as “destination playgrounds” being distinguished from “neighborhood playgrounds,” —even though every neighborhood playground is by definition a destination to play. Thus, while “destination playgrounds” rated in the top third of “facility priorities,” “neighborhood playgrounds” and the “picnic shelters” that can accompany them rated in the bottom third. But grouped together, “playgrounds” rate third on the list. 

3) The Mattie C. Hall Property: Another Curious, Questionable Deal. 

The City of Aiken’s Mattie C. Hall Property: Another Curious, Questionable Aiken City Property Deal

(4) Conceptual Plan for Williamsburg Street and Farmer’s Market: 

Click to access Williamsburg-Final-Draft-Report-Compressed-006.pdf

Background on Parks at risk of closure in North Aiken

From VisitAikensc.com and https://www.cityofaikensc.gov/parks-playgrounds-natural-areas/

Hammond / Williams Park

Hours of operation: Sunrise to Sunset
Park amenities include:

– Play System for ages 2-12
– 2 board tic-tac-toe games
– Swing Set (2 Tots, 4 Belts)
– Fenced playground
– 2 park benches
– Outside of fenced area: 2 grills (grill size is 38” X 36”; 1368
sq. inches of grill area)
– 3 trash cans
– 1.6 Acres

Charleston Street Playground

Hours of operation: Sunrise to Sunset
Park amenities include:

– Play System for ages 2 – 12
– 1 and 1/2 basketball courts (no lights)
– 1 sand box
– 1 swing set, 3 bays, 4 belt swings, 2 tot swings, 1 set of climbing bars, all
with mulch as a fall safe zone
– Kid timbers border play ground
– 2 trash cans
– Fence borders the park
– 1.16 Acres

Gyles Park

Hours of operation: Sunrise to Sunset
Park amenities include:

– 2 swing sets with a total of 4 swings
– 3 picnic tables
– 3 trash cans
– Railroad ties around park
– 1.56 acres
– Train caboose on display and two train cars

Perry Memorial Park

– 1 – 30’ picnic shelter (call 803-642-7635 for rental info) with 5 tables
(four tables seating 12 each and one table seating 8 = 56 adults), 1 grill
(grill is 36” X 38”; 1368 sq. inches of grill area), lights and water are
available upon request
– Sand walking track (1/4 mile; 4 laps = 1 mile)
– 11 soccer goals
– 2 back stops for baseball/softball
– 14 trash cans
– 8 bleachers
– 7 benches
– Split rail fence along Williamsburg St. and Abbeville Ave.
– Pond (Also used by Schofield Middle School science classes.)
– 9 holes of Disc Golf
– 24 Acres

At 24 acres, this is about twice the size of nearby Smith-Hazel Park; Perry Memorial Park is much more open. This park has a much larger picnic shelter that can be rented and reserved. The picnic shelter has tables, a grill and lights/water upon request.

The sand walking track is a quarter mile and that was nice today.

11 soccer goals, 2 backstops for baseball, and nine holes of disc golf. There is a dedicated parking lot and some street parking.“ https://www.yelp.com/biz/perry-memorial-park-aiken

City Government, Editorials, September 2022

Editorial: A Northside Story

5 Comments

Some History

In 1993, the City of Aiken spent $75,000 on what was billed as “a major facelift” to the circa 1963 Smith Hazel Recreation Center. The job entailed replacing two aging tennis courts, updating the facade, removing the fencing, painting the interior, upgrading the lighting, and repainting the lines in the parking lot. 

With this work occurring, as it did, in the wake a recent decision by the City to invest $2.3 million to build a second, major recreation facility on the southside, some saw the facelift as more of an appeasement than an effort to address the long-standing need for more recreational opportunities on the northside. Councilwoman Lessie Price spoke for many when she said at the time, “We want to elevate the recreational programs on Aiken’s northside to the level of the southside.”(1)

In 1994-95, the City of Aiken built the $2.3 million baseball and softball field complex (Phase I) at Citizens Park on Aiken’s southside. Five years later, another $7 million was proposed for Citizens Park, plus over $3 million in upgrades for the circa 1975 H. Odell Weeks Activity Center to include a 16-court tennis complex and pro shop, a new gymnasium, and $200k skateboard park.

In 2004, City officials decided it was time to talk about building a recreational facility on Aiken’s northside. The original $4 million slated for park facility got trimmed by $1 million for other projects. It was decided that the old City dump would be a good place this facility. (2) And for the next 10 years, that’s where the plans for a northside park stood.

In 2014, an Aiken Standard headline read: “Progress Made on Northside Recreation Facilities.” (3) The word, “progress,” referred not to forward momentum on physical construction during the prior 10 years, but to a decision by the City to collaborate with Clemson University, which had been tasked with guiding the City’s path that now included  $2.6 million allocated to build a park or open space on the the old City dump plus another $2 million for a possible recreational facility. It is important to note the use of he word “facility” in this headline and in other discussions of a northside park over the years, as this word was to disappear.

Public input and feedback — deemed imperative to Clemson’s ability to guide the City’s path — was solicited and gathered. A year earlier, the Clemson University Department of Landscape Architecture had created a concept presentation titled, “Northside Park.” The illustration below, from this document, gives visual reference to how a park would be built atop a city dump, as well as a description of some of the challenges inherent to such a project. The rest of the document illustrates the verbiage necessary to market such a product.

From the “Northside Park” presentation: “The technical challenges in building on a landfill include providing protection from the hazard of methane explosion, landfill settlement, and leachate management. The design team including landscape architects, environmental engineers and ecologists collaborated to research existing environmental conditions, relevant case studies and technologies for remediating and monitoring the landfill.”

Councilwoman Gail Diggs is to be commended for her departure from other council members in articulating her concerns over the environmental safety of building the park on top of the old City dump, as well as her belief that a northside recreation facility should aspire to match the standards of the Odell Weeks Activity Center. 

Dump, Landfill: Tomato, Tomatoh

For most of the century preceding this decision to turn this property into a park, the City landfill was called the City dump — the place for disposing everything from household garbage to business and industrial waste, broken-down appliances and equipment, furniture and mattresses; building materials, tree stumps, leaf mould, and even dead animals. For most of its history, the dump’s contents burned in open burn piles. As people who lived on the northside could attest, these burn piles permeated the neighborhood air with the stench and smoke of smoldering trash. In 1970, the practice of burning was officially phased out to transition to burying the trash. The term “landfill”was phased in at this time, but the burning continued. In 1986, the City began phasing out the landfill entirely, because there was simply no more space on that property to bury trash. 

At the culmination of the Clemson University 2014 collaboration — with input from the community, local non-profits, educators, and other interested stakeholders taken, collated, and evaluated — Dr. Bob Brookover of Clemson University suggested, in fact, two facilities for the northside: a senior-youth center and a recreation park. The specific recommendations for these facilities are laid out in the table below, which was published in the Aiken Standard. It is important to note that, at this time, the City dump was still in the picture. 

Among the key requests from the northside citizens for a recreation park was a facility accessible by bicycle, walking, or car. This is why the lands on Rutland Drive, across from Aiken High School, were deemed desirable by respondents. 

Anchors and Chains

In 2015, one year after the Clemson collaboration — and eleven years after the original decision to build the northside park on the City landfill — it was announced that the idea of building a park on the landfill had been “quickly squashed” by City Council members due to concerns about building a park on top of a landfill. 

This revision of history could be overlooked, if not for the fact that the ultimate decision on Aiken’s northside recreation facility was to not build one. Somewhere along the way between 2014 and 2015, talk of a northside recreation facility with a gym had been entirely replaced with talk of a walking trail. Or perhaps an open space. Maybe an an amphitheater.

Toward this end, the City purchased a 118-acre tract of land two miles outside of the city limits on Hwy 1 North. Accessibility by pedestrians or bicycle was apparently not a factor. Ground broke in late 2017. Shortly into the 6-month work of razing the trees and grading 40 acres of land to accommodate the walking trail, playground, amphitheater, multi-use field, and “plenty of parking,” it was decided to name it Generations Park. Later, it became the Beverly D. Clyburn Generations Park.

Much of the City’s attention to the park for the next three years would be directed toward the helter-skelter process of annexing the park into the City, then de-annexing the park, the re-annexing it back into the City via a curious thread of land incorporated into the mix.

A minor amount of energy has gone into rebranding this park which, for a relatively small sum of money, managed to put to rest any talk of a recreational facility. Nowadays, City officials refer to it as an “anchor” and “economic driver” to facilitate growth and development — houses, hotels, businesses, chains and such — between the City and the interstate. It was suggested that interstate travelers might even be drawn by the park to detour off the interstate down Hwy 1 and onward to spend some money in Aiken. 

Phase 2 of the Beverly D. Clyburn Generations Park

The plan for second phase development of the park — the funding for which had previously been included in the City’s Capital Projects Sales Tax list — was killed the same month the park opened. The reason given was price. City officials offered that, perhaps in the future, money could be found through a private-public development partnership. 

We can long ponder what the City actually accomplished with this sleight of hand, but one thing we needn’t ponder is whether, at the end of this 30-year deferment, the people of Aiken ever received the long-awaited recreation facility on the northside. 

Ponder, too, the fact that the City’s envisioned path forward looks very similar to the path backward.

Back to the Future

According to the 2022 Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Need Assessment and Strategic Plan that was drawn from yet another Clemson University collaboration — this one taking place in October-November 2021 — the City should look to divest more on the northside and invest more on the southside. The recommendations that followed, while intended to be used only as a guide, give a clear picture on where the priorities lie, going into the future.

For one, it is recommended that the City determine whether there are certain parks and facilities it should “divest” of. Consideration is recommended on the future of these parks: Sumter Street Park, Gyles Park, Charleston Street Park, Perry Park, and the Aiken Co. Farmers Market.

The recommendation for Smith Hazel is another facelift to include new windows, doors and HVAC; a retrofit of existing space to accommodate senior rooms and a fitness area; a new lobby, reception room and bathroom, and a place to store tables and chairs. 

It is recommended that Beverly D. Clyburn Generations Park should “largely remain an open space.”  No mention of a “facility” of any kind. No gymnasiums — not even an outdoor basketball court.

The recommendation for Odell Weeks Activity Center is to demolish the facility and rebuild it to include 4 gymnasiums; a multi-use room to accommodate 500 people; fitness and wellness space to accommodate aerobics, spin, cardio, strength, functional fitness space; an indoor climbing wall, a walking track, areas and rooms suitable for day camp programs; locker rooms, restrooms, concession/vending, and retail space; consolidated offices for most management and program staff; plus add 2 additional basketball courts and 6 additional pickle ball courts. Six of the hard-surface tennis courts at the Weeks Tennis Center are recommended to be converted to clay. 

The recommendations for Citizens Park include 4 to 6 new multi-use rectangular fields, including two with artificial turf, plus stadium seating and a new building to accommodate restroom and office space needs; a rebuilding of the walking track; a new maintenance, equipment and storage shed; new and upgraded lighting and scoreboards, and an irrigation system for one of the baseball fields. 

First the Bad News

Present-era City leadership does not appear to have our backs. 

Now the good news

We can change this trajectory by participating in local government, by learning about local issues, by attending City and County Council meetings, by using our voices, by organizing grassroots, citizen-based efforts to ampify our voices, by supporting potential candidates to replace elected officials who do not have our backs. 

Also, there is actually a large sum of money from the plutonium settlement that has been allocated for economic development on the northside, where the need is ongoing for economic development that actually meets the needs of the people who live there.

There are better things to ponder, beginning with the need for the City to support the northside, just like they do the southside and the westside. This includes supporting efforts to repair and preserve, rather than demolish houses in established, historic neighborhoods that have been, for generations, a vital part of the Aiken community.

A smoldering dump should never be placed next to anyone’s neighborhood, nor should anyone’s children be expected to play in a park built on top of that dump. This is not rocket science.

One of the problems with running a city like a business is that leaders tend to lose touch with the human element of a city; everything begins to be measured by how much profit it can generate. No one ever felt the need to justify the existence a basketball or pickleball court at Odell Weeks by to its ability to generate profit for the City or local businesses. Why is the northside park being viewed in these terms? And why, after 30 years spent talking about building a recreation facility on the northside — and some 4 years after breaking ground — is there still not a single basketball, pickleball, or tennis court at Generations Park?

______________

(1) West, Otto, “Smith Hazel Center Getting Major Facelift.” 5 August, 1993. p. 1B. The Aiken Standard.

(2) Lord, Philip. “Talk Mounts to Convert Landfill into Park.” 6 February 2004. p. 2A. The Aiken Standard.

(2) Schechter, Maayan. “Progress Made on Northside Recreation Facilities.” 14 November 2014. pp 1A+ The Aiken Standard.

Offsite Insights, Plutonium Settlement, Savannah River Site, September 2022

Offsite Insights 2022-2: SRS CAB Might Quit Snubbing Barnwell and Allendale Counties

2 Comments

by Don Moniak
September 16, 2022

The Savannah River Site (SRS) Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) is an official federal advisory committee formed in the 1990s during a short-lived period of government “openness.” According to its mission statement, the SRS CAB “will provide” the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) office with “information, advice, and recommendations concerning issues affecting the EM program at SRS.” The Board also functions to provide offsite communities and its citizens one of the sole information and communications path to a mammoth government and corporate bureaucracy. 

For the past two decades, when choosing bi-monthly meeting venues, the Citizens Advisory Board has snubbed poorer, rural communities that are closest downriver and downwind to SRS. These include Allendale and Barnwell Counties on the South Carolina side of the river; and Burke and Screven counties on the Georgia side of the river. The last Citizens Advisory Board meeting held in Barnwell County was in 2000; and no meeting has ever been held in Allendale, Burke, or Screven Counties. 

The snubbing of Barnwell and Allendale counties is particularly relevant today in light of the plutonium settlement of 2020. The situation could change in 2023.

Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell Counties and The Plutonium Settlement 

On August 31, 2020, the State of South Carolina and the Department of Energy (DOE) signed a $600 million settlement agreement (1) related to the decades long mismanagement of DOE’s plutonium storage and surplus disposition program. Central to the settlement is the presence of, and fate after the year 2037, of 9.5 out of the more than 11.0 tons of plutonium in long-term (up to fifty years) storage at the Savannah River Site’s (SRS) converted K-Reactor building. 

During the years of litigation and negotiation, South Carolina politicians normally enamored with all nuclear developments and national defense missions began to describe plutonium storage as a nuclear dumping scheme. For example, Governor Nicki Haley told the Post and Courier newspaper in 2016: 

“We will not back down: South Carolina will not be a permanent dumping ground for nuclear waste.” 

This was in spite of the fact that all plutonium storage is above-ground; and the materials are closely monitored and retrievable. 

(Plutonium storage at K-Area, Savannah River Site. DOE Photo)

According to the settlement agreement, the primary intent was to resolve economic impact and assistance payments related to the plutonium presence, the lack of progress in the disposition program, and the demand for a timeline to remove surplus plutonium. There is no intent in the agreement to end the storage and processing of plutonium at SRS—which is presently preparing for decades of producing nuclear weapon components called “plutonium pits.” 

“The parties intend that this agreement will resolve all claims relating to economic and assistance payments or removal of plutonium, or will arise, between 2016 and the date on which the Department of Energy completes removal of the subject 9.5 metric tons of defense plutonium or defense plutonium materials.” (Settlement Agreement, Paragraph 13)

Local officials and media immediately angled for the prime cut of funding, citing Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell Counties as most impacted and most worthy. Congressman Joe Wilson, whose district encompasses SRS, stated the day of the settlement that: 

“These funds should go directly to the counties of Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell were most impacted by the 1,700 jobs lost due to the DOE’s abandonment of MOX.” (WXLT-News) 

On September 5th, the Aiken Standard’s editorial board wrote 

“It’s time to financially assist those of us who have been most impacted by the economic ebb and flow surrounding the Savannah River Site, the shuttered MOX facility and its workforce.” 

The Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) made a splash a few weeks later when it sent letters to various local and state elected officials that advocated for the entire settlement, after legal fees, go to the three South Carolina counties surrounding SRS: Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell. The AMDC wrote: 

The risk of SRS operations and shipping/storing plutonium rests squarely within these three counties.

The letter’s author was AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, whose day job is Vice-President of Marketing and Communications for the National Security Group of Savannah River Site contractor Amentum Corporation. Other commissioner signatories included: 

  • Stuart McVean, the Chief Executive Officer of Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, the primary SRS operating contractor; and 
  • J. David Jameson, President of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce. 

The letter may have marked the first time in SRS history that top SRS contract officials and the Aiken Chamber of Commerce collectively presented threats from past and present site operations in such a public light. 

From: September 17, 2020 AMDC Letter to State Senator Tom Young and sixteen other elected officials.

Governor Henry McMaster concurred, and by the end of the 2020 issued a proposal advocating for all of the remaining $525 milllion to be allocated to the three counties, writing: 

It is my belief that the communities surrounding SRS should be the prime beneficiaries of these settlement funds.

SRS CAB Meetings: Everywhere but Barnwell and Allendale

On September 26th, two years after the plutonium settlement was announced, the Savannah River Site (SRS) Citizen’s Advisory Board (SRS CAB) will meet at the Embassy Suites by Hilton in the historic district of Savannah, GA. The meeting marks the seventh time in the past ten years of in-person meetings the Board has met in upscale hotels in Savannah. 

(The Embassy Suites by Hilton, Savannah, GA). 

During that time it has met twelve other times along the coast: 

  • seven times at Hilton Head Island, whose water supply originates from the Savannah River; 
  • four times in Charleston, where the Port of Charleston accepts shipments of foreign nuclear waste and materials of U.S. origin; 
  • and once in Beaufort, where the primary water source is also the Savannah River. 

While all of these cities have a strong vested interest in the safety of the Savannah River Site, Barnwell and Allendale Counties are adjacent to, generally closest downwind from, and always the closest downriver South Carolina communities. The Town of Barnwell is only eight miles from the SRS boundary, the closest county seat to the sprawling complex of nuclear weapons materials processing and cleanup sites. 

Allendale County has never been selected for a Board Meeting. Barnwell County has not hosted an SRS CAB meeting since the September, 2000, when the last one occurred at Barnwell State Park—which still boasts a “large meeting facility and five vacation cabins.” 

The Board did meet in Barnwell County three times between 1996 and 2000—the same year it also convened at luxurious Kiawah Island. The years 2015 and 2016 marked a sea change in meeting venues, with Board meetings held for a full year (2015) at the New Ellenton Community Center. Two more meetings were held in the small town bordering SRS in 2016, along with a pair of meetings at the nearby Applied Research Center in 2016 and 2017. 

But only since July 24, 2017 has a Board meeting convened within fifteen miles of the site boundary, during a meeting in downtown Aiken twelve miles from the site boundary. 

During this period meeting venues have been dominated by a rotation of upscale locations: Hyatt House, Sonesta, Double Tree, Crown Plaza, and the Hilton Garden Inns—-with the exception being nearly two years of virtual meetings due to COVID-19 guidelines and restrictions. 

SRS CAB MEETINGS July, 2017 to November 2022. 

Month/Year LocationCity
July 2017Applied Research CenterAiken County, New Ellenton
September 2017Courtyard HiltonCharleston, SC
November 2017Hilton GardenAugusta, GA
January 2018Beach House HotelHilton Head Island, SC
March 2018North Augusta Municipal CtrNorth Augusta, SC
May 2018 Hyatt RegencySavannah, GA 
September 2018Double Tree InnColumbia, SC
November 2018Partridge InnAugusta, GA
January 2019Sonesta HotelHilton Head, SC
March 2019Savannah Rapids PavillionMartinez, GA
May 2019Hyatt RegencySavannah, GA
July 2019Municipal BuildingNorth Augusta, SC
September 2019Frances Marion HouseCharleston, SC
November 2019Hyatt HouseAugusta, GA
Jan 2020 to Sept 2021Virtual Meetings 
November, 2021Holiday Inn Beach HouseHilton Head, SC
January 2022Aiken Municipal BuildingAiken, SC
March 2022Crown PlazaNorth Augusta, SC
May 2022Columbia Convention CtrColumbia, SC
July 2022Double Tree HotelAugusta, GA
September 2022Embassy Suites-HiltonSavannah, GA
November 2022Augusta UniversityAugusta, GA 

SRS CAB MEETINGS July, 2017 to November 2022. 
Barnwell and/or Allendale in 2023?

The snubbing of Barnwell and Allendale by the Citizen’s Advisory Board could be ending soon. The issue of a change in venue was raised at the last SRS CAB meeting, convened on July 26-27, 2022, at the Double Tree Inn in West Augusta twenty-five miles upriver and generally upwind from SRS.

At the meeting, I asked SRS officials and the CAB about the absence of Barnwell and Allendale Counties from the Board’s meeting locations and agendas. SRS Public Affairs specialist Amy Boyette informed me, with DOE SRS Manager Michael Budney listening, that Barnwell and Allendale lacked the necessary facilities to host a CAB meeting. I followed up a day later with an email, writing: 

“You expressed the opinion that Barnwell and Allendale Counties are not feasible for CAB meetings due to a lack of suitable meeting space and equipment. And Mr Budney was standing there and did not disagree. 

Are there any other reasons why full monthly Board meetings are not held in the two counties parochially identified by every SC elected officials at every level as the three most affected by SRS past and present operations?”

Ms. Boyette replied: 

We do not have full Board meetings monthly. There are 6 full Board meetings per year. These meetings are of/for the Citizens Advisory Board and they are also open to the public to observe. We have meetings both locally and in downstream communities. When selecting meeting venues, the primary factors, as I told you on Tuesday, are appropriate meeting space (large room, plenty of parking, food options nearby), dependable utilities (reliable WiFi and IT systems that can support virtual meetings/Live streaming, etc) and suitable overnight accommodations for those to have to travel to attend.

That said, your comments have made me want to double check Barnwell and Allendale. It has been a while since we visited those areas in person (we look online every year) to  scope out possible venues and accommodations. I have asked my staff to reconsider those areas and determine if holding at least one meeting there is feasible.

Conclusions

The Sonesta Hotel in Hilton Head boasts 23,000 square feet of indoor and outdoor meeting space able to accommodate 1,100 people. But the meeting facilities there and every other venue the Board rents look nearly identical to this SRS CAB meeting scene at the Crown Plaza Hotel in North Augusta in March, 2022. 

The SRS CAB has 25 members and a small support staff during meetings. Does the notion that places like Barnwell, Allendale or other small rural communities cannot accomodate such a small contingent reflect an institutional class bias? Or could another issue be that membership on the Savannah River Site Citizen’s Advisory Board presents opportunities to spend some time at government sponsored meetings at posh resorts and upscale hotels? 

The Sonesta Resort on Hilton Head Island, scene of the January 2109 CAB Meeting. 

________________

REFERENCES

(1) https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/South-Carolina-Settlement-Agreement-Final-signed-8-28-20.pdf

(2) 

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/politics/southcarolina-wins-federal-lawsuit-remove-plutonium-from-savannah-river-site-by-2037/101-2728bd82-4a77-47ec-8df2-2c412517c1f1

Sent from my iPad