Questions to Aiken City Council for its March 13th Meeting.
Aiken City Council will meet this evening in Council Chambers at 111 Chesterfield Street at 7 p.m. That agenda packet can be viewed at cityofaikensc.gov/cca. A work session is scheduled at 6 p.m., to discuss public art and the Smith-Hazel Park swimming pool. and City Council will meet for the first time in its new role as the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) at 5 p.m. (1)
The following email was sent this morning to Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh and Aiken City Council members. Council is likely to approve, during the final portion of its meeting agenda, a number of significant measures ranging from a no-bid predevelopment contract for several of the downtown, city-owned Pascalis properties to an agreement for a potential long-term lease of a 20-acre portion of Citizens Park to a private soccer club. Any answers will be added in updates.
“Mr. Bedenbaugh and City Council,
Following are questions regarding the Petitions and Request portion of the agenda for the 3/13/23 City Council meeting:
1. The Aiken Corporation agreement (Page 176-188). City Council will be voting to hire, in a post-dated fashion, the Aiken Corporation as the Developer for “public engagement, communication, and pre-development planning” for the proposed Savannah River National Laboratory off-site Office Complex. Council will be voting to approve a Professional Services Agreeement with Aiken Corporation that provides for up to $250,000 in city taxpayer funds.
a. The Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) references four different Engagement Agreements between Aiken Corporation and McMillan Pazden and Smith (MPS), with each one “contained herein.” However only the March 8, 2023, which is incorrectly noted as March 7, 2023, is contained in the agenda packet as Exhibit A. Missing from the agenda packet, but referenced as part of the legal Professional Services Agreement, are:
–A November 30, 2022, and December 9, 2022 Engagement Agreements, which are likely the same; and are “attached hereto and made a part of this agreement.”
–A February 27, 2023, Engagement Agreement, also “attached hereto and incorporated herein.”
Why are these referenced documents missing from the proposed due diligence Agreement in Council’s agenda packet?
b. Both Councilwoman Price and Councilwoman Diggs are on the Board and Executive Committee of the Aiken Corporation, and reportedly voted on February 8, 2023, to approve a motion to “sign an agreement with the City of Aiken to share in the costs of hiring” MPS with professional and consulting services for downtown development.
Was this agreement in hand when this motion was passed? If so, why was Council approval of this agreement delayed until March 13th?
c. How are costs being shared? There is no mention of cost sharing in the Agreement beyond the maximum of $250,000. Is Aiken Corporation sharing in the costs using funds derived from sources other than the City of Aiken?
d. The AMDC still officially owns the properties under review. SC Community Development Law requires both a redevelopment plan and a request for proposal (RFP) for any development. How could the City of Aiken City have legally pursued this development prior to, and after, December 2022 without the involvement of the AMDC, without a redevelopment plan, and without any RFPs?
e. After the City of Aiken referred people to the AMDC for all questions about Project Pascalis properties throughout that process, how could City Council legally begin negotiations for the long-term lease of properties–which it did not and still does not own– with both a non-voting ex-officio AMDC member and representatives of a Department of Energy operating contractor?
f. The Agreement states “the Developer shall not represent itself as the agent or legal representative of the City.” Why did the Developer, Aiken Corporation, represent itself as the city during the February 6, 2023, public forum? During the introduction to that meeting, the screen read “City of Aiken Public Input Session,” and not Aiken Corporation public input session. What agreement was in place on February 6, 2023, if any?
g. The Agreement allows Aiken Corporation to hire, or “freely assign” this contract to “an entity owned or controlled by the Developer” which “may or may not be currently in existence and may be created by Developer in the future.” Do any future Aiken Corporation assignment of duties in this contract have to comply with city procurement rules?
h. What recent experience, post 2010 say, does the Aiken Corporation have that qualifies it for Developer status for a $20 million plus project?
2. The Savannah River Site (Plutonium) Settlement Appropriations Subrecipient Agreement with Aiken County (pages 189-203), which commits the City of Aiken to compliance with the laws and regulations governing the use of State of South Carolina plutonium settlement funds.
a. Has the necessity of this document resulted in the delay of the Second Reading of the ordinance to amend the city budget to add plutonium settlement funds? This Second Reading was announced in a Public Notice published on March 3 and March 10, 2023. If so, does this oversight affect the validity of the First Reading of that ordinance held on Feburary 13th?
b. Under Representations, Warranties, and Covenants, the agreement requires City Council to agree that “there is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation at law…before any court, public board, or body.” How can this resolution be heard while the City of Aiken, the AMDC, DRB, and City Attorney remain as defendants in the Blake et al vs. City of Aiken et al lawsuit?
c. Under Basic Terms, and in other locations, City Council is limited to utilizing the Settlement Funds only to be limited to eligible projects and purposes. How is paying off the debt for the Pascalis properties, for which there is no redevelopment plan at present, an eligible project or purpose? Please reference the February 27, 2023 Letter to the Joint Bond Review Committee which calls into question the use of settlement funds to pay off a real estate debt inherited from the failed Pascalis project.
3. The Train Depot Museum reduction in hours. (Page 208)
Beginning next week, the train depot museum hours are being reduced from 48 per week to 20 per week. This facility received $900,000 in plutonium settlement funds, which were discussed during Council’s work session on December 12, 2022. No indication was provided at that meeting of a future reduction in hours.
a. Are these changes permanent?
b. How can $900,000 be invested in a facility that then has its hours of visitation reduced by more than half?
4. The proposed Downtown Cultural District. (Pages 154-160). Council will be holding a public hearing on a proposed 648-acre Cultural District which has a primary purpose of promoting tourism. Exhibit A in the packet identifies a long list of “cultural assets” that includes seventeen commercial establishments, five houses of worship, and several parks.
a. What is the definition of a “cultural asset” and how were they selected? There are no criteria identified in the packet, nor were any presented during the January 9, 2023 work session.
b. Were all businesses in the district informed of the opportunity to be listed as a “cultural asset” and thus receive a slight marketing boost from local government?
c. Were all religious institutions in the area informed of the opportunity to be listed as a “cultural asset?”
d. Why is Gyles Park and Smith Hazel Park omitted from the list?
e. How does the City of Aiken intend to monitor the cultural district, as required by the SC Arts Commission.
f. When was there a public notice of this public hearing? Is this hearing adhering to the city’s rules on public hearings at 2-64(7)? This rule of procedure states, in part, that any public hearing requires allowing “the public to communicate their views during the public hearing by using remote communication technology and this method shall be clearly stated in the meeting notice,” and the fact that “The council can take no action during the public hearing.”
5. The Leasing of 20 acres of Citizens Park to the Aiken Futbol Club for up to 25 years. (pages 161-175). Council will be approving a lease of Citizens Park at a rate of $1/year in exchange for undefined improvements that will remain the property of the city after the lease.
a. Will the area being leased be closed to all other uses? If so, how? The agreement states: “Lessor shall not grant any other entity use of the Premises for soccer purposes without the written consent of the Lessee.”
b. How can the lessee be held responsible for any damage to the fields unless they are fenced?
c. Under paragraph 17, the lessee has the first right of refusal “in the event that the Lessor receives a bona-fide offer to purchase the property at market price.” Why is this clause in the lease after City Council committed to keeping all the parks in its system at your October 10, 2022 meeting? Instead, shouldn’t City Council commit the city to keeping this property as long as the Futbol Club is the lessee and is utilizing its investment?
6. The Smith-Hazel Swimming Pool. Council will discuss the proposal to change the category of the swimming pool during its work session. This is the second work session committed to discussing the pool. Isn’t a public hearing to gather information and hear concerns from citizens a more valid approach at this point?
Thank You,
Donald Moniak
contributor: aikenchronicles.com
Footnote:
Agenda for AMDC special meeting:
Aiken Municipal Development Commission Agenda
Aiken Municipal Building
111 Chesterfield Street S. Room 309
SPECIAL MEETING March 13, 2023
5:00 P.M.
1. Election of Officers
a. Chairperson
b. Vice-Chairperson
c. Secretary-Treasurer
- Approval of Staff Recommendation for Lease of Property at 106 Laurens St. SW
- Approval o f a Resolution to Request the City Council o f the City o f Aiken to Authorize the AMDC to Transfer its Interest in All Real Property, Personal Property and Financial Assets to the City of Aiken.
- Consideration of Cancellation of March 14, 2023, Scheduled Meeting of the AMDC
- Other Business