Monthly Archives: March 2023

March 2023, Nature News

It’s in the Stars

4 Comments

By Burt Glover


As part of our natural world, stars are often overlooked. In my younger years I fell under the impression that telescopes were needed to properly study them. My older brother had received a reflector telescope for Christmas one year. Closeups of the moon were, of course, astounding. The planets, a little less so. The excitement of looking at the individual blurry spots, known as stars quickly faded.

Back then, I saw the nighttime sky as just an unchanging jumble of bright spots with no meaning, and I didn’t think much more about it. 

In my 30’s, my sister gave me a book– “The Stars: A New Way To See Them” by H. A. Rey, and it changed my life.

Starting in the early spring, with the scent of flowers in the nighttime air, I started my journey, sans a telescope.  I was quickly able to pick out the constellation Orion, the hunter.

This giant hunter, with his sword held high, and knife hanging from his belt, appeared to be in eternal battle with Taurus the bull, with its long horns charging. Of course, Orion has his hunting dog, Canis Major (the big dog), at his heels to help him.

So many stories from this small piece of sky! Betelgeuse, a bright star in Orion’s shoulder may, sometime soon, become a supernova which will light up our nighttime sky. Betelgeuse= Beetlejuice. Don’t say it three times fast, though! 

Night sky with Orion. (Photo credit: Vitalij Kopa, Dreamstime)

The Orion nebula, one of the few visible to the naked eye, can be seen in the knife hanging from his belt. His hunting dog assistant contains the Dog Star, Sirius in its collar. It was thought by our ancestors that when this star revolved behind our sun in July and August, it contributed to the sun’s heating power, giving us the “dog days” of summer. 

The Pleiades (translated to the Seven Sisters) is a very small star cluster of stars that occurs in the back of the Taurus the bull, which Orion appears to be battling. The Pleiades has been mistaken by many to be the Little Dipper, due to its shape, but it is not. The Japanese name of this star cluster is “Subaru,” and you may see an emblem of this star cluster on many of the cars that they make today. So many stories!

The blue reflection nebula and star cluster known as The Pleiades, or Seven Sisters. (Photo credit: Neutronman, Dreamstime)

As the seasons passed, my knowledge progressed. I learned more and more of the constellations, and so many more of their stories.

The zodiac consists of the twelve constellations that the sun, moon and planets appear to travel through in the course of a year. I was surprised to learn that there is actually a thirteenth constellation of the zodiac! With thirteen being such an unlucky number, our ancestors opted to look the other way. It didn’t help that the constellation (Ophiuchus)  depicted to them a voodoo doctor holding a snake that has been torn in two. I have never been one to put much stock in astrology, but I have always been curious. At the time I was born, the moon was in that thirteenth constellation. I’ve always wondered how astrologers would interpret such a thing.

Our ancestors charted their lives by the stars. As the constellations in the sky progressed throughout the year, they served as navigational guides, cues to plant and harvest, stories to pass along to younger generations. The stars that I see tonight will slowly circle around, and reliably be here to see next year at this time. The stars gave the ancients, and can give us, a sense of continuity — a connection with the cycle of life. The same is true of many animals, whose migration, feeding, and mating rituals are guided by the stars. 

These years, I don’t need to see a calendar to know that, when I see Orion rising in the early morning summer sky, winter is on its way. Seeing Virgo and Leo on the horizon in the cold of winter gives me hope that spring is near. Once you realize there is more to the night sky than a jumble of stars, you realize how much more there is to see. 

Meteor in starry sky during Perseid meteor shower. (Photo credit, Yaratam, Dreamstime)

Meteor showers arrive many times throughout the year, the best known being perhaps the Perseid in August and the Leonid in November. There are also comets, lunar eclipses and planetary occurances to dazzle. Weather phenomena are there to astound. I’ll never forget seeing my first “Moon Dogs” — rainbows surrounding the moon from ice crystals in the atmosphere.

Stars are an essential part of our natural world. And you don’t need a telescope to see them! As our ancestors and so many birds and animals could attest, the nighttime sky brings the circle of life together.

________________

The Milky Way as seen over Botany Bay on Edisto Island, South Carolina (Photo credit: Michael Ver Sprill, Dreamstime)

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.

March 2023, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab

Pu Funds Con Game?

4 Comments

A Letter to Aiken City Council Regarding Savannah River Site Litigation Settlement Funds, Mischaracterization of Downtown Aiken, and the Bailout of the $9.6 million Pascalis Project Properties General Obligation Bond

by Don Moniak

March 18, 2023

This past June, the South Carolina General Assembly legislatively allocated the City of Aiken $26.2 million dollars of state funds obtained from the the Attorney General’s 2020 “plutonium settlement” with the federal government. Another $0.9 million was allocated to the nongovernmental Friends of the Railroad Depot for the city-owned historic railroad depot on Union Street. Aiken County as a whole received $168.85 million—less than the $223 million in the originally City of Aiken’s original lobbying request.

The state budget law requires that the plutonium funds to be requested by county governments from the state Executive Budget Office, approved by the state’s Joint Bond Review Committee, and then managed and monitored by the counties. 

Newly obtained Savannah River Site Litigation Settlement Fund Request Forms reveal irregularities, inconsistencies, and questionable practices in the City of Aiken’s funding requests, including: 

  • The false characterization of downtown properties home to small businesses like Taj Restaurant, Newberry Hall, and Vampire Penguin as “blighted.” No legal designations of “blight,” which under state Community Development Law require an area to meet at least five of seventeen criteria, have been applied to any part of downtown Aiken.
  • A vague and misleading request for $25 million in funds for “downtown and Northside Redevelopment” that cited a misleading estimated project cost of $60 million. More than eighty percent of the cost estimate, $50.2 million, was for a line item called “other capital outlay” that lacked any details, as well as any reference to a downtown parking garage.
  • Grouping of the payoff of the $9.6 million general obligation bonds issuance, used to purchase downtown properties for the failed Pascalis project, with the $50.2 million “capital outlay” line item. The project wish list that was later publicly disclosed showed tens of millions of dollars of projects completely unrelated to downtown redevelopment—including one water system development project north of Interstate 20. The $60 million total project cost created the false impression that paying off the bond was essential to redevelopment elsewhere in the city, and functioned as a shroud to divert attention from the unwise $9.5 million Project Pascalis property purchases. 
  • A failure to publicly disclose that funding decisions were made by the city prior to any public discussion on the future use of the plutonium settlement funds—-a discussion that never involved the citizen input promised by Mayor Rick Osbon and City Manager Bedenbaugh following the collapse of Project Pascalis.
  • A misleading claim that “redevelopment of the City’s Northside” was a key part of the project. The total of plutonium settlement funds to date proposed in the most recent City Council budget amendement, for Northside redevelopment within city limits, is zero.

    Following is a letter to Aiken City Council and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh containing questions about the plutonium settlement fund requests, and a timeline of the proceedings. 

“Dear City Council and City Manager Bedenbaugh, 

On November 14, 2022, Aiken County Administrator Clay Killian signed and approved three “Savannah River Site Litigation Settlement Fund Request Forms” that collectively requested $27.1 million dollars from State of South Carolina plutonium (Pu) settlement funds allocated to  the City of Aiken. The request included $60 million of estimated project costs for the $25 million pot of money in the “downtown and Northside redevelopment” funding pot. The funding request information was never publicly disclosed.  

 Following are questions for six subject categories pertaining to these legally required requests for state funds, followed by the background for these questions. But the overall question is why were are do many irregularities and inconsistencies mark the process for managing the $25 million Pu settlement pot for “Downtown and Northside Redevelopment?” 

1.  When did the City of Aiken submit these forms, and when was City Council informed this request had been formally made? Why were these documents withheld from public disclosure and discourse until released in response to a FOIA request? 

2. Why were citizens told there would be “public input” sessions regarding the future of these funds after the these request forms had already been submitted to Aiken County to send to the state’s Executive Budget Office? 

Why did City Council only hold “work sessions” pertaining to the Pu Settlement Funds, but never a formal public hearing or other public input session as promised by Mayor Osbon and City Manager Bedenbaugh? 

3. How could a project-specific request be made to pay off general obligation bonds before City Council approved making that request through the budget amendment process?

 4.  Why did the $25 million request include a project cost estimate of $60 million when the list of projects were not part of a single project? Why was the $50 million request for “Other Capital Outlay” not broken down by project?

5. Within the $60 million request for the available $25 million, Mr. Bedenbaugh wrote that the General Obligation Bond issuance costs involved “land/building purchase in blight downtown area.” When were the Pascalis project properties declared blighted? Why is the City of Aiken/AMDC leasing a renovated motel room to a city employee in a “blighted area,” and why did the City of Aiken/AMDC issue a request for proposals to lease commercial property at premium rental rates if the area is blighted? Most importantly, why is the city mischaracterizing an area as blighted that when no area of town has received such a legal designation as defined by state Community Development Law? 

6. On March 13, 2023, Council removed the agenda item pertaining to a “subrecipient agreement” with Aiken County that allowed for the legal disbursement of Pu/SRS settlement funds. Why was this agenda item removed? 

Likewise, sometime between March 7th and March 10th, an agenda item involving the second reading of an ordinance amending the 2022-2023 budget to allow for the addition of  Pu settlement funds was also discarded—despite being advertised in two public notices published on March 3rd and 7th. Why was this second reading delayed a second time? 

Background: 

June, 2022. The State legislature passed a budget that allocated $525 million from the August 2020 agreement between the state and federal government regarding long-term storage of 9.5 metric tons of surplus plutonium from the nation’s nuclear weapons material stockpile. The City of Aiken received $27 million in three different funds. Another $75 million unilaterally allocated by Attorney General Alan Wilson to two contract law firms working on the case is being litigated before the South Carolina Supreme Court. 

September 27, 2022. The Aiken County legislative delegation office sent a letter to the City of Aiken detailing the requirements for obtaining state plutonium settlement funds, which was shared with Council after receiving it. This information was not publicly revealed until a November 28, 2022, Council work session and the letter was not included in any Council agenda packets until March 13, 2023.

October 20, 2022.  The Schofield Neighborhood Association (SNA) held a meeting at Smith Hazel Recreation Center. Attending that meeting were Mayor Osbon, Councilwomen Gail Diggs and Lessie Price, and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. 
During that meeting (1), in response to advance questions about the Pu funds from the SNA, Mr. Bedenbaugh stated the city was “fairly open to how we spend it.” 
Mayor Osbon was specifically asked  by Mandy Drumming, “Are you going to reach out to the community;” to which he answered “Yes.” 

November 14, 2022. Clay Killian signed his approval of three legal Savannah River Site Litigation Settlement Fund Request Forms submitted by the city since September 27th. 

a. $1.2 million was requested for Generations Park Improvements, of which $700,000 involved two line items regarding construction of a new turn lane, and three additional line items totalling $0.5 million. 

b. $ 0.9 million was requested for the City of Aiken Railroad Facilities Renovation on behalf of Friends of the Aiken Railroad Depot. Three line items were listed, including $100,000 for “professional services fee” for exhibit design and layout and a collective $800,000 for exhibit construction and installation. 

c. $25 million was requested for three items pertaining to Downtown and Northside Redevelopment, which had a total cost estimate of $60 million. 

i.  $9.5 million for “Building Purchase”, “downtown Building/Land Purchase of several parcels/GOB payoff;” 

ii. $0.1 million for “GOD issuance costs for land/building purchase in blight downtown area.” 

iii. $50.4 million for “Other Capital Outlay,” described as “Water, Sewer, and stormwater improvements, park improvements.” 

The project description included 

“redevelopment of the City’s Northside for the purpose of improving water, sewer, stormwater, and parks necessary to provide a safe community for residents and visitors.” 

The settlement request to the state Executive Budget Office, in which downtown properties with existing small businesses were characterized as in disrepair and blighted.



Whereas the much smaller Generations Park and Railroad Depot requests were broken down into multiple cost items, no breakdown of the $50.4 million of “Other Capital Outlay” was made. November 14, 2022. Aiken City Council held a work session that included an agenda item titled: “Initial Discussion About Plutonium Funds.” In his agenda item memorandum to Council, Mr. Bedenbaugh wrote: 

“The City has received $ 26.2 million of so-called “ Plutonium Settlement Funds,” the proceeds of which derive from a settlement between the State of South Carolina and the federal government. A portion of these funds [$ 1.2 million] are specifically for Beverly D.Clyburn Generations Park while the balance [$25 million] are for downtown and northside improvements. A list of projects that could potentially be funded are attached.

At tonight’s work session, we would like Council input on potentially scheduling several special work sessions for public input about expenditure of these funds.” 

The referenced list of projects (below), many unrelated,  totaled $69,885,000; which was $9,885,000 higher than the total requested from the state. 

The list of possible projects provided to City Council on November 14 and 28, 2022 for the $25 million plutonium settlement fund allocation of “Downtown and Northside Redevelopment.” The $9.6 million was submitted for final release to the state’s Executive Budget Office prior to November 14, 2022.


The agenda item was only briefly addressed. According to the meeting minutes, Mr. Bedenbaugh stated: 

“He wanted to set up some work sessions for discussion with Council and public input. He said the money is available from the State. It is unbudgeted money for the City, and we will ultimately have to do a budget amendment to account for these funds. He said he wanted Council to start thinking about projects for the funds. He said he wanted to start scheduling meetings so we can begin to determine the best use of the money.”

No references were made to the submitted request forms or the process by which the City would obtain funds. The fact that staff had already submitted for  the “”Reimbursement of $9.6M for purchase of downtown properties” was not disclosed. 

What was presented as an open question was, in fact, already a legally binding request. November 15, 2022: Mr. Bedenbaugh attended the SNA Association, but did not report on the progress of the plutonium settlement funds discussion. November 28, 2022. “Discussion About Plutonium Funds” was the second agenda item for a Council “work session.” 

Mr. Bedenbaugh’s memo, which included the same project list as November 14th, stated: 

“We would like to have additional sessions about the ‘Plutonium Settlement Funds,’ the proceeds of which derive from a settlement between the State of South Carolina and the Federal Government. A list of projects that could potentially be funded are attached and were shared November 14, 2022. At tonight’s work session, we would like Council to have some additional discussion and begin receiving input.” 

According to the meeting minutes, Mr. Bedenbaugh stated: “The listing totals greater than $25 million so he wanted to have some discussions with Council as to what projects Council wanted to designate. He said we also want to have some public input. He noted that the $25 million was designated for the northside and downtown improvements, economic development and infrastructure related improvements.” 

Council discussed the issue at length, but did not reach any consensus on a path forward, and did not solicit public input. Neither the fund request forms nor the details contained within the were  shared during the meeting or entered into the record. 

December 12, 2022. City Council held a work session with the Friends of Aiken Railroad Depot (FARD) to discuss the $0.9 million plutonium allocation for the train depot property developed by Aiken Corporation, now owned by the City of Aiken.

The money was obtained via lobbying from the Friends group–whose President Tim Simmons also sits on the Board of the Aiken Corporation; and the train depot is the only museum in South Carolina to receive Pu settlement funds. Meanwhile, little to no Council support was reported for the project of repairing actual railroad tracks—which was listed in the November 14 and 28 project possibilities. 

According to the meeting minutes, Mr. Simmons explained that his group “was asking Council for their permission” to pursue plans to “discontinue using the existing Depot as a Visitors Center and to use it for an upscale railroad museum.”  The meeting reportedly closed with Mayor Osbon stating “it seems there is a consensus for the project to move forward,” (indicating an informal vote during a session when votes are disallowed).

January 21, 2023. The City of Aiken announced its intent to demolish two Pascalis project properties and construct a 45,000 square foot office complex on behalf of DOE’s Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL); using $20 million in plutonium settlement funds set aside for “SRS/National Laboratory Off-Site Infrastructure” somewhere in Aiken County. 

January 25, 2023. The South Carolina Joint Bond Review Committee approved the three settlement fund requests. 

January 27, 2023. Aiken City Council met for its annual “New Horizons” work planning session. The Pu settlement funding was on the agenda, and a new list of projects totalling only $25.4 million was included on page 19 of the agenda packet. At the top of the list was the $9.6 million to pay off the general obligation bond used to purchase the Pascalis project properties, followed by the new Northside Gravity Sewer station project, the Fairfield Street Bridge, Generations Park, Smith-Hazel Park, the airport property, the Aiken railway, and city sidewalks. 

New on the list were bike paths ($0.5 million), Williamsburg Street redevelopment ($0.4 million), and “structured parking.” The latter had no attached price tag, but a cost of $7 million was reported in the meeting minutes.  There was no parking garage in the settlement fund request–which again remained out of sight and out of mind during the proceedings. 

According to the minutes, a “consensus was reached on paying off the $9.6 million bond.” No other “consensus” was reported, although there was documented discussion of the Fairfield Street Bridge, the sewer line lift station, and the airport property.  

Mr. Bedenbaugh also reported that he had submitted a settlement request form for the SRNL project for consideration at the next Joint Bond Review Committee. February 13, 2023. City Council passed the first reading of an ordinance to amend the 2022-2023 budget to include plutonium settlement funds. The vote was to approve paying off the general obligation bond ($9.6 million), fund the replacement of the closed Fairfield Street Bridge ($3.0 million) and fund the new gravity sewer lift station ($3.5 million) north of the city limits, leaving $8.9 million in the funding pot. Not a single project on the Northside within city limits was in the ordinance. 

February 27, 2023. City Council adopted a resolution prioritizing New Horizon goals. At the top of the priority list were, “Downtown core improvements to include upgrades to Richland Avenue parcels, construction of a surface parking lot on Newberry Street, and pursuing a structured parking solution adjacent to the current Municipal Building.” 

March 3 and 7, 2023: A public notice advertising the second reading of the budget ordinance was published. 

March 6, 2023. The Design Review Board held a “special work session” to discuss the city’s application for a three-story parking garage on Chesterfield Street. The primary stated purpose of the garage, estimated to cost at least $7 million, is to provide parking for the proposed Savannah River National Laboratory downtown office complex. If funds from the $25 million funding pot are used for the garage, only $1.9 million would remain for other projects. 

March 9, 2023. The agenda for the scheduled City Council meeting did not include the advertised second reading, but did include “Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the City of Aiken to Enter into a Savannah River Settlement Appropriations Subrecipient Agreement with Aiken County.” 

March 13, 2023. The subrecipient agreement resolution was dropped from the agenda. No  explanation was provided when the change was announced or when Council was questioned about it later in the meeting. 

March 14, 2023. Despite the lack of a City-County agreement, County administrator Killian approved the SRNL settlement fund request and forwarded it to the Executive Budget Office. 

March 16, 2023: City of Aiken provided the SRS litigation settlement fund request forms in response to a FOIA request I submitted on February 10, 2023–thus utilizing the entire statutory time limit for FOIA requests. 

Footnote: 

(1) Notes from 10/20/22 SNA meeting: 

Stuart B: “$25 Million from Pu settlement. In terms of other use of money, there is also $1.2 million for Generations Park and the railroad depot money was a separate appropriation lobbied by friends of the railroad. 

We are going to have work sessions scheduled and council meetings. City will have to have a budget ordinance to move further. It can be used for brick and mortar, sewer and water, it is fairly open to how to spend it. Before the end of the Calendar year. 

Mandy: Can you name the groups who are asking the money: 

Stuart B. Other entities are the AMDC, this group. 

Mandy: You are going to reach out to the community ? 

Osbon: Yes. 

Myself: The AMDC was lobbying for $20 million . Are they still? 

Stuart B. : Not for that project. 

Aiken County, March 2023, South Carolina Government

Rumblestripe

3 Comments

DOT Addresses a Dangerous Stretch of Road

by Don Moniak
March 18, 2023
(Updated March 20, 2023)

South Carolina Department of Transportation crews added a rumble stripe yesterday to the center line on Highway 19 North, commonly known as Edgefield Highway, from Interstate 20 to the county line north of Eureka (below).

The SC DOT Project Viewer shows the stretch of Highway 19 designated for a rumble stripe due to past accident history.


According to U.S. Department of Transportation technical advisory, a center line rumble stripe is a:

“Longitudinal safety feature installed at or near the center line of a paved roadway. It is made of a series of milled or raised elements intended to alert inattentive drivers (through vibration and sound) that their vehicles have left the travel lane. In most cases the center line pavement marking is placed over the rumble strip, which is sometimes referred to as a center line rumble stripe.”

State Highway 19 north of Aiken is a hazardous undivided roadway, perhaps rivalled in danger only by Highway 78 east of Aiken. The two-lane road has only two turn lanes north of Aiken, and the only passing lane is at the I-20 interchange at Exit 18. Southbound traffic routinely backs up if a single driver is turning left onto Reynolds Pond Road. Left hand turns at the curved junction with Shiloh Baptist Road and Old Graniteville Highway are ill advised.

Residents on the west side of the road must navigate traffic to reach their mailboxes on the east side of the road where the Postal Service delivers the mail. In the era of distracted driving, a few long curves on the road create a higher risk of motorists crossing the center line. Even in the absence of curves, drivers drift towards the ditch or across the center line. Super-speeders are routinely obsessively compelled to pass on short straightaways.

In July 2017 three people were killed and three others were hospitalized when a driver crossed the center line and caused a head-on collision. In September 2020 two people were killed when they collided head on with a dump truck on the straightaway north of Shiloh Baptist Road (1). Another head on collision on that stretch killed one driver and hospitalized another happened in August 2021 a few hundred yards from the 2020 wreck. A collision in 2019 on the curve north of Shiloh Baptist Road resulted in hospitalizations but not any fatalities.

With that many deadly and injurious wrecks, the number of near misses, though hard to quantify, must be high. For example, this past Thursday a semi-truck driver avoided a major accident by veering off the highway at the entrance of the solar farm. Here you can see the tire tracks from where they applied their brakes.

Sign of a near miss collision on Edgefield Highway, north of I-20.

According to the USDOT, seventy five percent of deadly head-on collisions occur on undivided two lane roads. The rumble strip is designed and intended as “a countermeasure for driver error, rather than roadway deficiencies. They are designed primarily to assist distracted, drowsy or otherwise inattentive drivers who unintentionally stray over the center line. For this set of drivers, the audible and vibratory warning produced by center line rumble strips greatly improves the chances of a quick and safe return to their lane. Where drivers don’t safely recover, the warning created by rumble strips often improves driver reaction, reducing crash severity.”

The rumble strips can also aid drivers during periods of heavy fog or other low-visibility conditions. Studies have shown reductions in crashes causing injuries of one third to one half.

Rumble strips are not without any downsides. They are considered enough of an inconvenience and safety concern for motorcyclists that DOT recommends alerting bikers to the presence of the strip. The noise generated by vehicles crossing the strip during passing can be a major annoyance to residents along the roadway. They also serve as a symbol of the decline of alert driving—an inconvenient safety measure otherwise unnecessary for focused drivers.

The long curve on the South end of Eureka has been the scene of multiple wrecks involving drivers going off the road after failing to navigate the turn. A rumblestrip was added to the road yesterday, March 17th.

Update

SC DOT also has stretches of U.S. Highway 78, Williston Road; and State Highway 302, Wagener Road, scheduled for rumblestripe projects. The Hwy 78 rumblestripe will run from Hwy 302 east to Oak Ridge Club Road. The Hwy 302 rumblestripe will run from east of the Owens Corning plant to Montmorenci Road.


Footnote:

(1) Major accidents that block roads create serious secondary safety issues in the form of poorly conceived detours. Following the September 2020 fatal collision, SC DOT and the Aiken County Sheriff’s Department funneled motorists and truckers on a circuitous and winding detour (below).

Southbound detour route during the emergency response to the September 2020 fatal head-on collision just north of Hankinson Boxing Gym. Some drivers also became temporarily lost along the route due to misplaced signage. The detour for northbound traffic was even more confusing.


City Government, In the Demolition Zone, March 2023, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab

The First and Last City Council/AMDC Meeting?

2 Comments

AMDC Land and Asset Transfer Deferred Due to Conflict of Interest Issues During Disorganized and Indecisive Meeting

by Don Moniak

(Update, April 4, 2023: The audio tape and meeting minutes of the March 13th AMDC meeting described here have been obtained via a Freedom of Information Act Request. At the 32 minute mark of the tape, City Attorney Gary Smith can be heard intervening in the discussion about the transfer of properties. After some discussion about the ethical dilemna described in this story, he recommends that Council continue the discussion and act at the March 27th meeting to dissolve the AMDC, which would achieve the intended action of transferring AMDC properties to the City of Aiken. This provides evidence that the March 27th vote to dissolve the AMDC was primarily about transferring properties, and that dissolving the AMDC was a secondary motive at best).

March 15, 2023

One month after assuming the role of governance of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), Aiken City Council met for the first time as the commission late Monday afternoon, March 13, 2023, for a special-called meeting. It was the first meeting of the AMDC since a special-called meeting in September 29, 2022, when the remaining six commissioners voted to officially end Project Pascalis. The last regularly scheduled meeting was held on June 14, 2022–two weeks before Project Pascalis effectively ended.

The proceedings were messy at best, and better resembled a parody of a public meeting. Poor preparation by city staff and the legal department were a root cause of much of the indecision and confusion that characterized the meeting.

Omitted from the meeting agenda was approval of the September 29, 2022, AMDC meeting minutes that contains the motion to cancel vital elements of Project Pascalis. Staff also failed to prepare a listing of AMDC properties, did not provide copies of proposals for leasing 106 Laurens Street, and could not tell Council/Commission how much money the AMDC has in its checking account.

Of the four agenda items, only one passed smoothly: the cancellation of “scheduled meeting of the AMDC” for the next day, March 14th. The meeting was not on the city’s calendar, and would have been illegal due to the absence of a posted agenda twenty four hours in advance.

Election of Officers

The meeting began with the election of officers. Council/Commission members Ed Girardeau and Kay Brohl were elected as AMDC Chair and Vice Chair, respectively. After there were no nominations for the position of Secretary/Treasurer, the new commission elected City Clerk Sara Ridout to the position.

Later in the meeting, City Attorney Gary Smith had to revisit the vote and inform the commissioners the secretary/treasurer vote violated AMDC bylaws which requires members to be officers. The Council/Commission then voted to elect Lessie Price to the position.

“Approval of Staff Recommendation,” Absent a Staff Recommendation

The second series of miscues occurred during discussion of the selection of a tenant at 106 Laurens Street, most recently the former home of Beyond Bijou clothing boutique (which recently relocated to the former True Value hardware store on South Laurens). The AMDC issued a Request for Proposals for “ parties interested in leasing commercial property at 106 Laurens Street SW…. for an abbreviated lease term to expire January 31, 2024,” with subsequent month to month tenancy.

The  vacancy is in one of three commercial spaces within the historic, Beckman Building, also known as “The Palmetto Block.” The AMDC purchased the 19th century structure on November 9, 2021, for one million dollars from Shah Enterprises, LLC (Agent: Neil Shah). The building was part of a $7.5 million real estate package known as the Shah Property that included five other properties—Hotel Aiken, Holley House, Taj Aiken Restaurant, McGhee Building, and Warneke Cleaners.

The Aiken Design Review Board approved the building’s demolition at the request of the AMDC and RPM Development Partners, LLC (Agent: Ray Massey) on March 1, 2022; in conjunction with the approval of the demolition of the Hotel Aiken. The 6-1 vote to demolish the Beckman Building was made despite the building being occupied by of three successful, taxpaying, small businesses; as well as the complete absence of identifiable structural problems in the demolition application.

The DRB rescinded the demolition on December 6, 2022–more than two months after the official end of Project Pascalis— and only after the persistant prodding of concerned citizens.

On Monday, after Vice-Chair Kay Brohl pointed out that staff had not provided the commissioners with any of the proposals, Council/Commission approved a motion to continue the item to the next meeting, then turned around to approve a motion to reconsider the motion before finally approving a third motion— to accept the recommendation of City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh.

Despite the agenda item clearly reading “approval of staff recommendation for lease of property,” Mr. Bedenbaugh did not possess a recommendation in hand regarding the three applicants—Flawless Glow Cosmetics Studio, Radioactive Pinball, and Assurance Financial—-but promised to decide within 72 hours.

Transfer of Property and Financial Assets.

Next on the agenda was the “Resolution to Request the City Council of the City of Aiken to Authorize the AMDC to Transfer its Interest in All Real Property, Personal Property and Financial Assets to the City of Aiken.” The resolution would leave the AMDC in place, but without any assets or property.

The AMDC officially owns ten properties: the seven downtown properties that formed most of the Pascalis demolition and redevelopment project, and three vacant parcels on Williamsburg Street collectively known as the Jackson Petroleum property. The former were obtained at a cost of $9.5 million in November 2021, the latter at a cost of $175,000 in March 2021.

The discussion began with a recusal from Council/Commissioner Mayor Rick Osbon, due to his Osbon Dry Cleaners competitor Warneke Cleaners being a current tenant on AMDC-owned property. After a reminder from Mr. Bedenbaugh that the Williamsburg Street properties were adjacent to Sutton Marine (Owner: Ed Woltz), Council/Commissioner Ed Woltz recused himself.

After Mr. Bedenbaugh explained a path forward for the City to finally take official ownership of the AMDC properties and assets, newly elected Chairman Girardeau asked for citizen comments.

City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh explaining the path forward to City Council/AMDC Commssioners. From Left to Right: Gail Diggs, City Attorney Gary Smith, AMDC Chair Ed Girardeau, Stuart Bedenbaugh, Andrea Gregory, and Lessie Price. Not pictured : Kay Brohl. (Photo: Don Moniak)



I was the only speaker on the topic, and inquired as to why commissioners Lessie Price and Gail Diggs had not recused themselves, due to their membership on the Board and Executive Committee of the Aiken Corporation. If the two recused, there would be no meeting quorum and therefore no vote.

City Council’s agenda for that evening included a resolution to approve a $250,000 Professional Services Agreement with the Aiken Corporation. The contract identifies Aiken Corporation as the initial developer and marketer, and ultimate property manager, for four of the Pascalis properties—Warneke Cleaners, McGhee Building, Taj Restaurant, and Holley House.

The vaguely defined project involves a proposed off-site Savannah River National Laboratory downtown office complex on the demolished Warneke and Holley House properties, and “rehabilitation and reconstruction” of Taj Aiken and the McGhee Building for retail use.

In addition, the Aiken Corporation’s Executive Committee had voted, on February 8, 2023, to “sign an agreement with the City of Aiken to share in the costs of hiring McMillan, Pazden, and Smith Architecture with professional and consulting services for downtown development.” (1)

From the February 8, 2023 meeting minutes of the Aiken Corporation Executive Committee.


The conflict of interest scenario was enough to provoke a discussion on alternatives. City Attorney Gary Smith offered the option of tabling the motion, with City Council then acting at its March 27th meeting to formally dissolve the AMDC; which would result in the AMDC’s assets reverting to the city.

Section 13 of the AMDC bylaws addressed dissolution of the commission and acknowledged the commission existed at the pleasure and continued approval of Council:

“Upon dissolution of the Commission for any reason, all assets of the Commission shall be conveyed and transferred to the City of Aiken to be used to carry out similar activities.”

In the ensuing discussion, Council/Commissioner Lessie Price asked for a clarification on which properties were involved; as staff had not provided any details of AMDC assets in the agenda packet, and City Attorney Smith had failed to identify the properties when preparing and/or approving the resolution’s language.

Price also had to ask how much money the AMDC had in the bank. The city’s Economic Development Department staff, who are also the AMDC’s staff, could not answer the question beyond a rough estimate of $100,000.

Six Months of Ineffective and Indecisive City Council Leadership

Project Pascalis was officially cancelled on September 29, 2022. That day, AMDC Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chairman Chris Verenes issued personal statements that acted as pleas for an investigation. No reported investigation into alleged staff irregularities and legal violations ensued, and on December 9, 2022, the two leading commissioners resigned in protest. City Council has yet to meet with the former commissioners to discuss their concerns and allegations.

On December 14, 2022, Commissioner David Jameson, the last member of the commission’s “Executive Committee,” resigned. In his resignation letter, Jameson identified the relatively simple and straightforward South Carolina Community Development Law as the culprit in the demise of Project Pascalis, writing: “the statute that governs the actions of the AMDC is riddled with contradictions and nearly insurmountable obstacles.”

Commissioner Jameson, whose role as Aiken Chamber of Commerce President often overlapped with his commission role, failed to provide a single example in support of that statement. The statement was also at odds with AMDC Chairman Keith Wood’s repeated expressions, in public comments prior to and after the Pascalis cancellation, in support of full compliance with the Community Development Law.

City Council has always had the simple and most practical option to dissolve the AMDC by rescinding its founding ordinance that resulted in Chapter 11 of the Municipal Code. Instead, Council allowed the AMDC to flounder after September 29th. Eventually, it took the circuitous route of assuming governance in order to vote to transfer property and financial assets; and then have to vote again as Council to take ownership of property and financial assets.

In the meantime, the only successor to Project Pascalis was initiated behind closed doors and arguably in violation of the same state Community Development, Freedom of Infomation, and Ethics laws highlighted in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit. Since the cancellation of Project Pascalis, Aiken City Council and city staff began closed-door negotiations for the future of AMDC properties—which Council has long claimed are beyond its jurisdiction—with representatives of the Savannah River National Laboratory’s contractor, secretly chosen a developer without a public Request for Proposals, and proceeded to pursue a decision made without any redevelopment plan. Call it Project Labscalis.

Footnote:

(1) The list of board participants at the February 8, 2023 Aiken Corporation meeting included:
Gail Diggs and Lessie Price;
Two Aiken Planning Commission members: Sam Erb and Jason Rabun;
USC-Aiken Chancellor Daniel Heimmermann;
Three members of the Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee: Chairman Jason Rabun, past-Chair Norman Dunagan, and future-chair Charlie Hartz.



City Government, Correspondence to/from Local Officials, In the Demolition Zone, March 2023, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab

The Local Politics of No-Bid, Pu $ Culture

4 Comments

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

  1. Approval of Staff Recommendation for Lease of Property at 106 Laurens St. SW
  2. 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.
  3. Consideration of Cancellation of March 14, 2023, Scheduled Meeting of the AMDC
  4. Other Business