It’s February — not quite winter, and not quite spring. Some of the early blooming trees and shrubs are waking from their winter sleep. Also waking right now are the yard weeds or, as us foragers call them, dinner — and sometimes breakfast!
Wild sow thistle harvested from the yard and sautéed with chopped garlic. Eggs sunny-side-up with sides of sautéed sow thistle and oranges
I use no insecticides, pesticides or herbicides in my backyard — nor is it near a busy roadway or used as a pit stop for pets — which makes good grounds for gathering edible, wild plants. Late winter and early spring are the perfect time to harvesting the early arrivals. One of my favorites is chickweed, and my unkempt yard is a paradise for it.
Chickweed (Stellaria media) is a dainty, small-leafed plant that tends to grow in clumps and masses. It is so common, as to be almost and is ubiquitous in the landscape. Despite it’s unassuming demeanor, it’s a nutritional powerhouse, rich in vitamins A, C and D, as well as folic acid, riboflavin, niacin, thiamine, calcium, magnesium, potassium, manganese, zinc, iron, phosphorus and copper.
Another common yard weed this time of year is the dandelion, which emerges in late fall and winter, then disappears with hot weather. Earlier generations cultivated dandelions in their gardens, fertilizing heavily to grow healthy greens for winter. All parts of the dandelion are edible, including the flowers, which can be eaten raw or even breaded and fried up into fritters. The dandelion also has a long history as a medicinal plant with many positive health benefits. Studies suggest that it may detoxify the liver and gall bladder, lower bad cholesterol and triglycerides while improving HDL (good) cholesterol, help digestion, improve kidney function and bolster the immune system.
Another of my favorites is wild lettuce — a somewhat large weed in my yard that I only discovered last year. Because it’s collected as-needed, there’s no concern about shelf life in the refrigerator. This plant also has a long history as a medicinal, which is an interesting area to research. When eaten as a food, should only be eaten in smaller quantities. I use mine on tacos, sandwiches, or mixed in with other greens in a salad. Pick a few leaves off of each plant, and they continue to grow from early spring to late summer — just like weeds!
Cucumber salad topped with a mix of wild lettuce, chickweed, and a mix of other greens and flowers from yard and garden.
Here, I must insert a caveat, which is also the reason I’ve not included photos for identification. Some wild plants can sicken or kill you. It takes time, research and experience to become a knowledgeable forager. I’ve been doing this for many years. When I began, there were only a few that I could positively identify, and that was exciting. Others, I learned over time, sometimes taking a few years to thoroughly familiarize myself with their growth habits, timing, flower forms, etc. to make a positive identification. Once that was accomplished, there was the matter of experimentation. Should I cook, or not? What cooking method/recipe works best? Is this a taste I enjoy? Collecting and utilizing wild plants is a learning process that I have found to be satisfying and fun to do. There are so many online resources to assist in this process.
I’ve mentioned just a few plants, but the yard will soon be carpeted with more arrivals throughout spring and into summer. With just a short walk, I can collect a diversity of edible plants — henbit, shepherd’s purse, storksbill, sow thistle, cleaver, lambsquarters, violets, clover, storksbill, smilax, wild onions, garlic…. The list goes on.
Yard weed, survival food, or epicurean delight?
Some plants are all three and, in addition to being less fussy, they are often more nutritious than their domesticated counterparts. As more foragers and gardeners discover this, more of these wild plants are being offered on the market for purchase, propagation, and intentional planting in gardens and landscapes. Me, I’m among the avant-garde, still picking my weeds for free.
__________________
Contributor Burt Glover became an accidental naturalist during his earliest childhood days exploring the dirt roads, backyards, polo field and barns of the Magnolia-Knox-Mead neighborhood of 1950s Aiken. Birds are his first love, and he can identify an impressive range by song alone. He asserts that he is an observer, not an expert, on the topics of his writings, which range from birds, box turtles, frogs and foraging, to wasps, weeds, weather and beyond
The “Aiken Community Improvement Project” and the June 2022, collapse of Project Pascalis.
by Don Moniak
February 17, 2023
Recently obtained records (1) pertaining to The Aiken Municipal Development Commission’s (AMDC) Project Pascalis reveal the following:
Confirmation of past statements made by former AMDC Chair Keith Wood and Vice-Chair Chris Verenes regarding an effort in late June 2022, to restart Project Pascalis in a lawful manner.
A tentative plan existed in late June 2022, to rebrand the endeavor the “Aiken Community Improvement Project,” and to lawfully rework the basis for the entire effort—including a new Redevelopment Plan with a proper public hearing, and a new Request for Proposals. Although the scheme was never implemented, its existence validates numerous instances of wrongdoing documented in the July 5, 2022, Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit that, along with an ongoing citizen petition drive, kept the project derailed.
AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant knowingly provided false information to local media in regard to the withdrawal of the Project Pascalis developer’s application to demolish six properties in downtown Aiken. O’Briant falsely claimed the demolition request hearing was “postponed” due to the holiday weekend and COVID-19 concerns.
Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon, Aiken City Council, and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh were all briefed on project complications and the tentative plan to restart the project, but have chosen to hide the facts of the matter from Aiken citizens and taxpayers.
The information obtained represents only a sliver of the record of what transpired the last week of June 2022. For example, the motive for the restart and the proposed amendments to the redevelopment plan remain undisclosed.
The Contentions of Keith Wood and Chris Verenes.
On September 29, 2022, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) voted to cancel its highly controversial $100 million plus downtown demolition and redevelopment project known as Project Pascalis—-after spending more than $10.5 million from the Aiken city treasury on the effort.
Following the official meeting, AMDC Chairman Keith Wood and Vice Chair Chris Verenes read and issued personal written statements (2) alleging that unnamed city staff had manipulated the procurement process. The two appointed officials maintained that the legally required public advertisement for a Request for Proposals was withheld by staff until after a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) was signed with the newly formed development consortium RPM Development Partners, LLC.
Chairman Wood wrote, in part, that
“The AMDC was first informed of the detailed requirements of the Community Development Act by the staff and the AMDC attorney in a meeting on June 23, 2022.”
“AMDC was also informed on June 23, 2022, that staff delayed the publication of a Request for Proposal (RFP) without disclosing the action to the Commission. “
“On June 23, 2022, both staff and the AMDC attorney recommended that the AMDC start the process over due to staff’s failure to advise the AMDC to strictly follow the required process of the Community Development Act.”
Vice-Chair Verenes wrote, in part:
“A deliberate decision was made——WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL…to delay running an ad for proposals until after we signed an agreement with a developer.”
In his December 9, 2022, resignation letter, Vice-Chair Verenes further confirmed Project Pascalis was stopped after the June 23, 2022 meeting, writing, in part, that:
“The focus should be on why this project was suddenly stopped as relayed to us in the AMDC meeting of June 23, 2022. Fifteen people attended that meeting to include city staff, consultants and commissioners. As relayed to us in that meeting, actions were taken that I cannot condone, approve or excuse.”
No additional information was provided to support these contentions. According to their December 9, 2022, resignation letters (2) that reference a November 21, 2022, email to City Council, Wood and Verenes allege they continuously sought to meet with Aiken City Council to explain details of the project’s collapse, only to be rebuffed by all but two council members—Lessie Price and Ed Woltz.
Keith Wood wrote in his resignation letter:
“Aiken City Council (who created the AMDC) refuses to hear from me (except for Mayor Pro Tem Ed Woltz and Councilwoman Lessie Price) and Chris Verenes…relative to the indefensible actions taken that resulted in the termination of Project Pascalis.”
The June 23 to June 29, 2022, Project Pascalis Collapse.
In the two days leading up the meeting, AMDC attorneys from the Pope-Flynn law firm researched South Carolina Community Development law, worked on an “omnibus ordinance and revisions to the redevelopment plan, and held a conference call for “the next steps for AMDC,” eventually billing the commission $6925 for 20 hours of work.
The special-called June 23rd meeting was attended in person by Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Aiken Corporation CEO and ex-officio member Buzz Rich, AMDC Project Manager Sabina Craig, AMDC Program Manager Tom Hallman, and all but one AMDC commissioner. AMDC contract attorney Gary Pope and AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant attended via a ZOOM conference call connection. No information on the discussions of the nearly two-hour long meeting were publicly revealed.
According to the Pope-Flynn billing invoice, attorney Gary Pope, Jr. worked 5.7 hours the next day on “work on redevelopment plan and necessary items to pivot project.”
Three days later, on June 27, 2022, Aiken City Council met for one hour in closed-door Executive Session to discuss Project Pascalis developments. Council opted to not provide a summary, or share any details, of the discussion after exiting executive session. However, a recently obtained June 29, 2022, email exchange between Tim O’Briant and Keith Wood indicates that City Council was briefed on the rapidly eroding situation, but chose to remain mum.
The draft News Release announcing a restart and rebranding of Project Pascalis.
On the morning of June 29, 2022, Tim O’Briant sent an email to Stuart Bedenbaugh and Gary Pope, Jr, blind copied to all AMDC commissioners. The email contained a draft media release announcing “plans to update a preliminary 2020 Redevelopment Plan,” also known as Redevelopment Plan One, and issue a new Request for Proposals. The draft media release went on to say, in part:
“The best way to dispel any and all questions regarding the process is to begin it anew.”
RPM Development Partners, LLC had “been notified that talks related to a Project Pascalis have been terminated and that a new proposal opportunity will be forthcoming.”
The renaming of Project Pascalis to the “Aiken Community Improvement Project”
A draft Public Notice for the amended Redevelopment plan and public hearing was also made available, with a footnote stating:
* “ Notice assumes a 7/19 AMDC meeting and public hearing for the redevelopment plan
* Given that assumption, we need to publish on 7/4 (statute requires 15 days notice).
* To publish on 7/4, need to get the notice to The Aiken Standard by 10am tomorrow morning.”
According to the emails (4), release of the information was embargoed by Keith Wood until a formal vote by the commission could be held, and contractual and legal matters were resolved. Tim O’Briant argued the news should be released to clarify the impending announcement of the cancellation of a scheduled Pascalis properties demolition hearing before the city’s Design Review Board (DRB), and to provide an update in time for a planned Aiken Standard community forum on ZOOM.
The following debate occurred the morning of June 29, 2022—six days after Keith Wood and Chris Verenes later reported they were first informed of irregularities in the procurement process caused by alleged staff malfeasance.
Tim O’Briant: “Please review the attached draft media release detailing the process to amend the downtown redevelopment plan and to resolicit the project. Note the renaming of the project from Project Pascal to Aiken Community Improvement Project.
“This needs to go out this afternoon so please share any thoughts or concerns quickly.” (9:51 a.m.)
Keith Wood; “Tim, I do not approve of this. The AMDC has not taken a formal vote, and until we do I do not agree with issuance of a press release. I ask that you stand down with issuing any such press release.” (10:11 a.m.)
Tim O’Briant: Keith, That is entirely up to you and among the reasons this is being circulated as a draft. That said, please be aware of the following facts on the ground:
– Some 48 signs posted all around the properties every 20 feet that announce a demolition request hearing before the DRB on Tuesday, July 5 are being altered as we speak to show the requests have been withdrawn. An announcement will go out later today that the meeting for Tuesday has been cancelled. That will beg questions and broad commentary.
– Unrelated to anything we have or have not announced, the Aiken Standard has scheduled a “Beyond the Headlines” community zoom discussion at noon tomorrow to discuss Project Pascalis and it would be preferable to announce new direction prior to that event.
– In order to meet the schedule we discussed last week, the first legal ad notice must run in the paper no later than July 3 and July 10 to comply with Redevelopment Law provisions.
– Following our discussion with a quorum of the full AMDC membership and Monday’s update to City Council in executive session, direction to staff was clear, at least to me and those in my obit (sic), as to how we should proceed. If you prefer a formal vote prior to any announcement that will put us well behind the pace of actual events.”
Let me know your thoughts or whether you would feel more comfortable with a release from the City of Aiken. Doing nothing is the poorest option, but obviously that’s the commission’s call.” (10:44 a.m.)
Keith Wood: “My position has not changed and many of my concerns are outlined in my earlier email. I am very adamant that the AMDC not be a part of any news release or public notice on this issue at this time. We have numerous contractual and legal issues to be addressed and I do not want to make matters worse by issuing a press release.” (11:01 a.m.)
Aiken City Solicitor and FOIA officer Laura Jordan cited the “attorney-client privilege” FOIA exemption when denying release of the “earlier email.” However, the final email from Keith Wood was labeled as attorney-client privilege, suggesting either selective use of FOIA exemptions or another staff oversight.
The Demolition Request Withdrawal.
Also on June 29, 2022, the City of Aiken publicly announced the cancellation of the scheduled Design Review Board Demolition Request hearing for five of the Pascalis properties and one private property within the demolition zone. On the same day he privately acknowledged the demolition request was withdrawn, Tim O’Briant falsely informed both the Aiken Standard and WJBF-News that the meeting had been “postponed” due to the Fourth of July holiday and COVID concerns.
“Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant said Wednesday morning that the meeting had been postponed and would not take place as scheduled.
O’Briant said later Wednesday that the meeting was postponed because it was scheduled to take place the day after Independence Day and the city wanted to make sure that all interested people could attend the meeting.He added that the city was also working through some COVID-19 concerns as well.”
O’Briant was later interviewed by WJBF reporter Shawn Cabbagestalk, where he disputed the “withdrawn” label, and repeated the falsehood the hearing was merely postponed to an undetermined date. O’Briant also repeated the transparent lies that COVID-19 and the holiday weekend contributed to the “postponement:”
“O’Briant says the change is due to the July 4th weekend and COVID concerns.”
On June 30, 2022, the day of the WJBF interview, DRB counsel Jim Holly confirmed that the applications were withdrawn, by writing there were no pending applications before the DRB on the downtown project. In spite of this contradiction, Tim O’Briant continued to equivocate by saying the Demolition Hearing was postponed—instead of honestly replying that it was cancelled because the AMDC and its developer had withdrawn the request and further information was unavailable due to legal and contractual issues.
Eight Months Later: No Answers, No Accountability.
Nearly eight months after the second rendition of Project Pascals imploded, Aiken City Council continues to refuse to divulge any details of the project failure. Evidence is lacking of any internal investigation into the repeated allegations made by former AMDC Chair Keith Wood and Vice-Chair Chris Verenes into what Wood’s deemed “the failure of the largest downtown redevelopment effort in our city’s history.”
On Monday, February 13, 2023, Aiken City Council voted 5-2 to assume the role and responsibilities of the AMDC. The two dissenting votes came from Council members Ed Woltz and Lessie Price. The remaining Council members continue to refuse to meet with the former commission leadership.
Council members continue to assert that the July 5, 2022, lawsuit, which effectively derailed any effort to restart and rebrand Project Pascalis, is hampering their discussions with citizens. While the advice of their attorneys are unknown, the lawsuit has not prevented Council from requesting an independent investigation into the economic development failure that left city taxpayers with a $9.6 million debt from the October 2021 general obligation bond issuance used to fund the purchase of Pascalis project properties.
For example, there was no reported followup to a report in the Aiken Standard that the Pascalis RFP was contracted with the paper for November 2021, but “its publication was stopped at the behest of O’Briant, who called the Aiken Standard to get the request for proposal canceled.”
On January 3, 2023, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, acting as an ex-officio member of the depleted commission, re-instated Tim O’Briant as a signer for the commission’s checking account (5). O’Briant’s title AMDC Executive Director had been quietly removed from the commission’s website sometime in October 2022, not long after Keith Wood and Chris Verenes alleged that unnamed staff had contributed to the project’s failure by acting outside their authority and deceiving the commission.
Less than a month after Wood and Verenes resigned, Economic Development Director O’Briant’s AMDC responsibilities were restored. The North Augusta resident remains one of thirteen city employees with an annual salary exceeding $100,000. With city officials failing to heed Chris Verenes’ call that “the public deserves no less than the truth,” that salary and position appears secure as the city attempts to rebrand its next round of redevelopment for the seven downtown Project Pascalis properties.
Footnotes
(1) A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was on January 31, 2023 for “1. A copy of the June 29, 2022 letter sent from AMDC Chair Keith Wood to “appropriate city staff officials,” as reported in his public statement of September 29, 2022, which can be found at this link: https://aikenchronicles.com/2022/10/12/the-project-pascalis-rfp/ The appropriate city staff officials are estimated to include, but not limited to, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. 2. A copy of any memorandum or notes prepared by Stuart Bedenbaugh, Tim O’Briant, Assistant City Managers Mary Tilton or Mary Lawton, or City Clerk Sara Ridout, regarding the discussion of the cited June 23, 2022 meeting referenced in Mr. Wood’s written public statement.”
The June 29, 2022 letter was denied by City Solicitor Laura Jordan, who cited the “attorney-client privileged information” exemption in SC FOIA. The three documents released were the email exchange in Footnote #4, the draft news release of June 29, 2022, and the draft Public Notice (below) of a public hearing for an amended redevelopment plan.
(4) Email exchange of June 29, 2022, between Tim O’Briant and Keith Wood. The last email is labeled “attorney-client” privilege.
(5) January 3, 2023, change to AMDC check signatory list.
(6) The 2/21/23 email and attachment from Tim O’Briant to Donald Moniak, which was not cc’ed to any other city employee or official, are below (click on images to enlargen):
(7) No “errors” were corrected, for reasons outlined in my email response of , which was also cc’ed to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Mayor Osbon, and City Council. There has been no response to date from any city officials.
“Mr. O’Briant,
Your letter this morning fails to correct any perceived errors, and raises questions about what the City of Aiken knew in regard to an alleged COVID-19 outbreak within “DRB operations” on June 28, 2022, and whether public health information was withheld from people with a right to know.
1. In regard to your statement: “As you will see from the attached correspondence, the developer was not the applicant, the AMDC was as owner of the properties.”
Both applications clearly identified RPM as the applicant. The AMDC was listed as the owner on one application (below), and Aiken Alley Holdings was listed as the owner on the other application. While there is an obvious error in your statement, where is the error in the article? What do you expect to see corrected?
2. In regard to your statement:
“As for the ‘COVID-19 concerns,’ two key figures in DRB operations had, that day, fallen ill with COVID. One ended up suffering a fairly serious case. In both cases, it was clear they would be likely be unable to attend the forthcoming meeting. HIPPA protections do not allow me to individually disclose the private health data of those affected.”
a. This is news that has not been confirmed, and vague news at that. Why did the City of Aiken choose to withhold this information?
While you are prohibited from sharing this information, those who were sick are not. There is no shame in admitting one has or had COVID, and the fact that there was a COVID outbreak was not shared in your 6/28 letter to Ms. Moultrie, nor with the public in statements to the media. “Covid Concerns” are not an admission that incidences of covid preclude an event. Didn’t you learn anything from this pandemic?
There was also no mention of this in any of the emails to Keith Wood and the Commission. One would think that such a serious matter would be shared with them. Would you care to share all of the correspondence that week to confirm your assertions?
b. There was a long (more than 2 hours) and very crowded DRB Workshop on June 21, 2023, held in Room 315, and people were also packed into another room to watch on video. Masks were handed out during the meeting, and Mr. Bedenbaugh and three other city employees can be seen in the video utilizing that option. According to DHEC, there were COVID concerns that day. Covid concerns have yet to end, but such concerns were not often being used at that time to cancel meetings.
c. A clear alternative for the June 21st work session was to hold it in Council Chambers and provide much better spacing between attendees. Why did the City of Aiken and its Design Review Board move forward with this meeting format, especially knowing that a DRB Board member was reportedly sick with COVID at that time and missed that meeting?
d. If two members were sick seven days after that meeting, it is very possible that the meeting was the source of the spread. Even if it was not, their presence in that room indicated a need to notify other attendees of the situation. Your news raises even more issues:
i. Was DHEC notified of this event so it could conduct contact tracing?
ii. Were citizens who happened to be in that room notified that people who attended the 6/21/23 workshop were infected with COVID-19?
iii. How many other people became ill because they attended this meeting in a crowded, confined, poorly ventilated space when the city of Aiken had a much better alternative?
iv. What were the City of Aiken’s COVID-19 official prevention protocols on that day?
3. In regard to your continued insistence that “postponed,” was the apt description of the action, the fact remains the applications were withdrawn. They were no longer in place, and your statements to the media failed to make that clear.
As for the definition of postponement, there is no single definition. The accurate description of the July 5 demo hearing is that it was cancelled (not postponed) because the applications were withdrawn (retracted being a synonym of withdrawn).
I made that case on June 30, 2022.
4. Your letter today confirms the fact that the 4th of July holiday excuse was a false assertion.
There is nothing to correct in this story. It was based on available information at the time. You have provided additional information that only raises further issues about the city’s actions from June 21 to June 29, 2022. These questions need to be answered. According to your letter today, the City of Aiken knowingly withheld vital public health information from citizens, and failed to alert those who attended the June 21, 2023 meeting that it might be the source of a COVID-19 outbreak.
Pope-Flynn Billed City of Aiken $700 to Redact Publicly Disclosed Invoices that Remain Publicly Available.
By Don Moniak
Feburary 17, 2023
One month ago, City of Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant and Finance Director Kim Rooks co-signed check number 9016 from the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) checking account. At the time the commission was reduced to two voting members and unable to conduct official business.
The check was for two hours of work for the Pope-Flynn law firm for “redaction discussion with Laura Jordan. Review invoices and redactions. provide comments to Laura.” (1)
The comments provided are unknown at this time. But one persistent redaction was the phrase “Project Pascalis” from the subject of each invoice—-even though it was common knowledge that Pope-Flynn was under contract with the commission to provide legal counsel on the project.
Unredacted versions of Pope-Flynn’s invoices have been a matter of public record since March 31, 2022, following the first Freedom of Information Act request pertaining to the commission’s Project Pascalis. Five Pope-Flynn invoices were publicly released in the first response, and more than a half dozen were added following a later request.
For example, when compared to the unredacted version of Pope-Flynn’s April 2022 invoice (Figure 1), the redacted version (Figure 2) shows that vague phrases such as “open items,” “community meeting,” “deal points necessary to resolve,” and “Relocation Assistance Agreements” were suddenly considered “attorney-client privileged information;” even though not a single invoice is labeled “attorney-client privilege.”
Figure 1: Lightly redacted version of April 2022 Pope-Flynn invoice, illustrating censorship of “Project Pascalis” in the subject line, while “Project Pascalis” appears in the expense report. GTPJ stands for Gary T Pope, Jr. whose billing rate is $350/hour. His taxpayer funded lunch at Aiken Brewing Company with Tim O’Briant was otherwise worth less than ten minutes of his time. It is unknown whether the lunch was a break or part of the 11.4 hours of billing for April 20th, when Pope sat in the counsel role at two community forums on Project Pascalis. During the evening meeting, Pope provided a misleading timeline of City Attorney Gary Smith’s involvement with the project. Figure 2: Unredacted Pope-Flynn invoice for April 2022, presently available in AMDC’s “Financial Binder” folder, and publicly disclosed in August 2022 in response to a FOIA request.
Yet, in response to a FOIA request submitted for “all legal department invoices” for Calendar Years 2021 and 2022, City of Aiken Manager and custodian of records Stuart Bedenbaugh approved the redaction of information of all legal invoices under the pretense of “attorney-client privilege”—even though in this case the information was publicly released four to eight months previously, remains publicly available in unredacted form, and was never marked as “attorney-client” privilege by the attorney or the client.
More importantly, Mr. Bedenbaugh, Ms. Jordan, and City Attorney Gary Smith, whose invoices were also heavily redacted, seem to forget the client at the top on the city’s organizational chart, Citizens of Aiken, have a right to unvarnished, unsanitized, and unredacted information pertaining to operation of their city.
Footnotes
(1) Pope-Flynn invoice billing the City of Aiken to redact portions of publicly disclosed Pope-Flynn invoices that remain publicly available in unredacted form.
(2) Nearly every record on the webpage were posted there due to a FOIA request, which is a recommended method for government bodies to reduce FOIA costs. The most important records pertaining to the process, such as the AMDC’s Purchase and Sale Agreement with RPM Development Partners, LLC, are deliberately omitted. The AMDC also refuses to release any other procurement records.
Questions to City of Aiken Regarding its Council Redistricting Plan.
by Don Moniak
February 14, 2023.
Two hours and forty five minutes after Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon called the February 13, 2023 Aiken City Council meeting to order, the last item on the agenda was addressed:
“V(2). Approval of a Resolution Establishing City Council District Boundaries.
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.”
The agenda item itself was contradictory, stating the resolution (1) established boundaries even though the resolution itself is only “relating to the establishment” of boundaries. In fact, the resolution does not define boundaries, it defines criteria for the boundaries. No boundary maps were released or approved via resolution Monday night.
According to the supporting memorandum (2) from City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, boundaries will not be approved until after two public information sessions are held—more than one year after the process was initiated.
However, according to an exchange with contract attorney James Holly, boundaries have been drawn, if not finalized. After Councilwoman Lessie Price asked if “these are the latest plans that we reviewed at our last meeting,” Mr. Holley confirmed that was the case.
Attorney James Holly responding to a question regarding voting district plans at 2:46 of the meeting. (Photo: CIty of Aiken You Tube channel)
Mr. Holley has been working on redistricting with the city’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) office for more than a year, billing the city 35 hours and ~$9400 for the first six months of 2022 alone. Mr. Holley was present at the November 28, 2022, closed-door Executive Session which Council held, in part to “receive legal advice regarding possible changes to the City Council districts (3) resulting from the population and demographic information compiled as part of the 2020 Decennial Census.”
More legal advice on redistricting was provided during another Executive Session held on January 9, 2023.
To clarify the situation, the following email was sent to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh and cc’ed to Mayor Osbon and City Council members.
Mr. Bedenbaugh,
Could you clarify the resolution on City Council District Boundaries that was passed last night? Due to the meeting running so late, I deferred on asking any questions about this year-long process that has involved several Executive Session meetings.
1. Your supporting memorandum stated that it was “necessary for Council to adopt via Resolution the criteria to produce updated district maps.” Ten criteria are identified in the resolution.
2. On the other hand, the announced public information sessions are intended to “allow citizens to provide their input regarding the proposed updated Council district boundaries.” The first of these meetings is scheduled for February 23rd, one week from Thursday
3. During the reading of the resolution, you stated a map will be made available today.
4. During the reading, Councilwoman Price asked:
“Are these the last plans that we reviewed at our last meeting?” (This would have been an executive session on 1/9/23?).
Attorney Holley replied in the affirmative.
5. Questions:
a. Why were the criteria adopted more than one year after the process began as early as January 2022? In February 2022 contract attorney Jim Holley began meeting with GIS Administrator Tim DeTroye and others to work on this sensitive issue, and this work continued throughout 2022. For the first six months of 2022 alone, Attorney Holley billed the city ~55 hours at a cost of ~$9400 for redistricting legal work.
b. Why were the criteria adopted one day before the map would be made available?
It sounds like Council actually adopted the boundaries last night by virtue of accepting the criteria to define the boundaries, and is now seeking public input on a decision, not public input on a process. If this is an incorrect assessment, please advise.
Thank You, Donald Moniak
Footnotes
(1) Resolution approved by Aiken City Council on February 13, 2023.
(2) Supporting City Manager’s Memorandum for the Resolution.
The Left Hand Turn at Fire Station #4 by Don Moniak
February 13, 2023
Since September 2022, Aiken city officials have endorsed a proposed shopping center with 339 parking spaces, anchored by an unknown grocery store. Located along Silver Bluff Road, the shopping center will be bounded to the south by the Village at Woodside, face a residential neighborhood, Pin Oak Village, to the west, back up to Woodside Plantation to the east, and abut Aiken Public Safety’s Fire Station Number Four to the north.
A traffic signal at Pascalis Place and Silver Bluff Road, adjacent to the fire station, is proposed by the developer to manage the expected increased traffic. Aiken Public Safety fire crews will be able to control the traffic light during emergencies. According to city officials and the developer, a safety issue already exists at the station—a difficult left-hand turn during busy traffic periods. During a public meeting on January 9, 2023, Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon suggested the City of Aiken could not improve safety at the Fire Station unless the shopping center is developed.
The agreement will grant the project’s main developer, Peach Properties of Columbia, “a nonexclusive easement for access to and from the proposed shopping center property to access a signalized intersection at Silver Bluff Road and Pascalis Place,” through Aiken Department of Public Safety’s Fire Station Number Four. The station houses the closest engine and staff for a large area that includes unincorporated parts of Aiken County such as the Creekside neighborhood and Richardson Lake Road.
A new traffic signal is necessary due to the further anticipated traffic increase. The developer’s proposal is for a traffic signal at the junction of the existing fire station entrance, Silver Bluff Road, and Pascalis Place; with control of the signal from the fire station during emergency calls. Although the developers claimed a traffic study was underway as far back as September 13, 2022, no such study or even preliminary data has been disclosed.
With the granting of the easement, the entranceway to the fire station will also accomodate customers exiting and entering the shopping center. The traffic study that is a stated condition for final approval of the shopping center has yet to be completed, so there are no estimates on traffic volume on Silver Bluff Road and how it could impact emergency response times from the fire station.
Even without the shopping center, increased traffic from the past two decades of development on Silver Bluff Road, involving hundreds of new homes at Pin Oak Village, Colleton Place, and Village at Woodside, has already contriburted to an existing safety issue at Fire Station Number Four.
Pin Oak/Colleton Place Planned Residential Development, Approved in 2005. Bottom Photo 2012, Top Photo 2021. (1) The 4.8 acre area in blue is approved for annexation as part of a larger shopping center. Fire Station #4 is to the right.
Village at Woodside Planned Residential Development, also approved in 2005. Top photo is 2012, Bottom Photo from 2021.
An Existing Safety Issue
During Aiken City Council’s first reading of the ordinance authorizing the development, on September 26, 2022, Aiken resident Preston Rahe (2) identified among his many concerns : “increased traffic will make emergency response slower and more difficult.” Sentiments about increased traffic were also raised by numerous other speakers.
Peach Properties representative Brad Shell spoke soon after, and assured City Council this was not the case:
“In addition, a traffic light is being proposed at the intersection of Pascalis (Place) and Silver Bluff (Road) near the Fire Station. Currently that intersection without a traffic signal performs poorly from a DOT perspective at certain times of the day, particularly if one is trying to make a left turn. With a traffic signal there,that problem would be alleviated. At times a left turn out of the Fire Station, particularly at peak hours, is difficult. With the traffic signal, the Fire Station would have the ability to control the signal to stop all traffic to allow them to get out and go quickly to emergency calls.”
City Councilman Ed Girardeau later echoed Baldwin’s assertion, stating:
” There are positives. The traffic signal for Pascalis getting out to the left is a positive. For the Fire Station to be able to flip a switch and turn the traffic signal on and get out of the station and onto Silver Bluff is a positive one.”
Shell and Girardeau did not acknowledge the probability of traffic backing up between the proposed light and the fire station exit, whether due to an existing red light or a red light triggered from the station. How will fire station personnel control traffic stuck between the light and the fire station?
Location of the proposed new traffic signal at the intersection of Silver Bluff Road, Pascalis Place, and the entrance to Fire Station #4. (Aiken County Property and Maps database photo).
An emergency traffic signal exists at APS Station 3 on West Richland Avenue in North Aiken, but this signal is directly in front of the station’s exit. (3)
Aiken Public Safety Fire Station #3 on West Richland Avenue, showing emergency traffic signals at the station’s exit. (Google Earth Photo)
Unlike the Richland Avenue emergency traffic signal, the Silver Bluff traffic signal will not be at the station’s exit, and an emergency signal is not planned. The distance from Fire Station #4 exit to the probable stopping point at the new traffic signal is at least 65 feet, and 105 feet from the signal itself. With an average car length of 15 feet, more than five vehicles could occupy south bound travel and turn lanes on Silver Bluff, and obstruct an emergency responder making a left turn.
The area between Fire Station #4 exit and the stop line for the proposed traffic signal. (Google Earth Photo)
“The addition of a traffic light at Pascalis Place creates a new hazard to vehicles leaving the fire station. A steady stream of shopping center customers entering and leaving the center significantly increases the risk of an accident between an emergency vehicle and a civilian vehicle. Even if the traffic light is controlled by the fire station, it is not at the fire station, it is 105 feet away. An emergency vehicle that leaves the fire station may be blocked from turning by cars already stopped at that traffic light.”
Aiken resident John Veldman added, among his many points:
“A safer design would place the signal in front of APS Station 4, rather than the proposed design which features a signal 100 feet away. Placing the light in front of APS Station 4, would eliminate the moving vehicles that our Public Safety Officers would have to deal with as they respond to an emergency where seconds count.”
Peach Properties representative Brad Shaw countered by stating the fire station will have “total control” of the intersection, while still admitting the existing situation is often unsafe.
“The signal allows the fire station to have total control over that light over the entire intersection actually so they can stop traffic in all four ways to get out. Right now I believe they have a tough time making a left-hand turn at busy hours, and this will certainly enable them to control traffic.”
But the “total control” contention was not entirely supported by Aiken Public Safety Director Charles Barranco, who only acknowledged the proposal would be a “better situation” than the current scenario. The ideal safety arrangement has yet to be defined by city officials.
Mayor Osbon: “Obviously there’s a lot of comments of potential stacking at the light. I know this is something that your staff and you have looked at it. I mean you feel comfortable, this is something you’re endorsing?”
Chief Barranco: “Having control of the intersection in all directions, and our emergency response vehicles have lights and siren on them as well, we believe it’s a better situation than what we currently have as far as accessing Silver Bluff Road in general.”
Don Moniak: “What is the ideal situation then, safety wise? What would be ideal there? If the developer wasn’t coming, what would be the solution for the traffic on Silver Bluff Road?”
Mayor Osbon: “What would be the ideal? I don’t think we have the budget to do the intersection, so this is a solution of the developer.”
In the absence of the major shopping center development, the City of Aiken is not even contemplating any improvements to mitigate an acknowledged, existing safety issue—the increasingly difficult left turn from Fire Station Four onto Silver Bluff Road.
The City of Aiken’s strategy for improving safety is essentially to first authorize an increase in vehicle traffic, and then rely upon the developers to solve the problem they are creating, even if that solution is far less than ideal. The City’s planning process appears strongly biased towards accommodating the desires of developers, not public safety needs.
(2) Edward Preston Rahe is one of two plaintiffs, along with John Veldman, in an appeal filed against the City of Aiken contesting the approval of the ordinances authorizing annexation of property for the proposed shopping center, and the Village at Woodside’s amended concept plan for the property.
Disclosure: Don Moniak is an independent researcher under contract to assist with the appeal. This article is not a part of that contract.
(3) The effectiveness of the Station Three emergency signal is compromised by two factors: a. West Richland Avenue is a 45 mph zone where drivers frequently exceed 50 mph. b. The light is only 450 feet west of a double traffic light at the intersections of Gregg Avenue and Summit Drive, at the top of a hill. Drivers travelling west bound are prone to speeding over the hill to beat the red light, and the fire station awaits 450 feet below the light.
(4) The January 9, 2023, first reading occurred from minutes 56:50 to and can be seen in the archived live stream on the City of Aiken’s You Tube channel.
