Daily Archives: January 22, 2024

City Government, Development Issues, January 2024, Planning & Development

“Not Attractive at All.”

3 Comments

The Development of the Aiken Corporation’s “25 Acres”

by Don Moniak
January 22, 2024

This month Aiken City Council is conducting public hearings on a proposed 7-acre development within a larger 25-acre parcel of land between York and Kershaw streets in North Aiken. The first hearing was held on January 8, 2024, and the second hearing is scheduled for tonight, January 22nd. (The development information can be found on pages 75-107 of Council’s agenda packet).

(Update: The development was approved).

 The developer, High Brass LLC, is applying to rezone the property from General Business to Planned Residential, and intends to build seven townhomes with a total of 26 residential units alongside a 15,000-square-foot commercial building with a 66-space parking lot. The remainder of the acreage is slated for future development. 

“Planned Residential” zoning allows for up to five percent of the area to be developed for commercial purposes (1)  The proposed development calls for seven percent commercial space, which led to a recommended waiver by the Planning Commission at its December 2023 public hearing.

During its January 8th public hearing, no Aiken City Council members objected to the waiver, but the two Council members representing the Northside of Aiken did have objections to the look and feel of the townhouses. The developer had only provided one page and two grainy photographs (Figure 1) depicting the approximate look of the townhomes, and another of the commercial building. Detailed drawings and original architectural renderings are absent from this development application. 

Commerical Building
Townhomes

Figure 1: Original Commercial Building and Townhome examples in original development application.

According to the meeting minutes, District Two Councilwoman Lessie Price stated that the homes are “not anything to get excited about,” “wondered if there could be some amenities added,” and asked “if the homes could be a little more attractive.”

District One Councilwoman Gail Diggs offered the opinion, that:

“The buildings are not attractive at all. Just because they are affordable housing, doesn’t mean that it can’t be attractive housing and that is what we want on the north side, something attractive and affordable.”

These admonishments were atypical for both Councilwomen, who normally welcome, with few reservations, development on the often neglected Northside. In response to their concerns, Planning Director Marya Moultrie stated the developer would be asked to provide additional drawings and details for the next hearing.

The developer subsequently delivered a series of additional grainy photographs that appeared to be from other area developments. One of the photos bore a resemblance to Pacer’s Run Apartments, minus the backdoors. 

Townhome Example on the 25 Acres
Pacer’s Run Apartments

Figure 2: Backside of Townhome example and Pacer’s Run Apartments (Photo from Google Earth).

An added dynamic is that both Councilmembers are only nine months removed (2) from the Executive Committee of a non-profit organization that presently owns the property, and who recruited the developer. That organization is the Aiken Corporation; which also is in the process of landing a no-bid, sole-source $20 million contract with the City of Aiken to develop a “mixed-use” office building on one acre of land it owns on Newberry Street; for the purpose of hopefully leasing it to the Savannah River National Laboratory’s operating contractor.

Aiken Corporation’s Acquisition of the 25-Acres.

In November 2021 the Executive Committee of the Aiken Corporation was informed by City of Aiken staff that the owner of the 25-acre parcel wished to donate this land to the city. The caveat was that it could not be developed for at least two years due to its stand of forestland having been heavily logged without permission from the City. (Figure 3)

March 2014
January 2019

Figure 3: Before logging and after logging of the 25 Acres. (Aiken County property database aerial images)

According to ACorp meeting minutes from November 2021, the original owner of that property wished to donate it to the City of Aiken. At the time the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) was charged with developing beat-up properties in the city, but was consumed with the ill-fated Project Pascalis. Instead of granting the donated property to a public entity like the AMDC which would have been accountable to City Council, the City opted to grant it to the private Aiken Corporation and allow it to plot the future of the property.

For the next two years, the Aiken Corporation wrestled with the future of the property, with “The 25-Acres” being a subject of “Old Business” at the next 15-20 meetings.

On May 24, 2022, former City of Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant reported to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh that an offer had been “secured…to purchase 25 acres on York Avenue held by the Aiken Corporation. Aiken Corp has approved the purchase and sale agreement for $625,000. Intended use would be a built-for-rent single- family residence subdivision.”

Two months later, the Aiken Corporation’s for-profit property purchase and management arm, LED Inc, spent $650,000 to purchase three lots totaling one acre in the 100 block of Newberry Street, NW. The purchase was funded by a $625,000 loan from Security Federal Bank. Whether the York Street property was used as collateral for that loan is unknown. (The story of the Newberry Street purchase and eventual selection of that property for the $20 million “SRNL/Mixed Use” project is told in Aiken’s Cousin Problem—The Aiken Corporation Targets Newberry Street for SRNL Spec Project.)

Unfortunately, the $625,000 with the prospective purchaser, the Auben Company of Augusta,  was cancelled at the end of 2022. A subsequent negotiation with Southeastern LLC, the developer of the Aiken Mall, also went nowhere.

According to its May 2023 meeting minutes, the Executive Committee then authorized using a local realtor to list the property. (3)

In June of 2023, the ACorp Board voted to accept an offer of $437,500, from an unidentified party. The price closely corresponded to the appraisal value that was ordered to quantify the size of the donation for IRS reporting purposes. The Aiken Corporation’s latest IRS financial filing lists a noncash donation of $420,000.

If the High Brass Development’s proposed combined housing and commercial development is approved, Aiken Corporation has 180 days to sell the property or otherwise transfer ownership. If it chooses to do so, ACorp/LED would then be able to pay off two-thirds of its $650,000 Security Federal Bank loan for its recently acquired Newberry Street property.

The Aiken Corporation and its developer were both absent from City Council’s first public hearing on January 8th; there is also no record of ACorp representatives being present at the Planning Commission’s December 12, 2023, public hearing; where three representatives of the development team appeared.

The task of answering Council’s questions was left to a Cranston Engineering employee who has no authority to alter the planned development, and who is only accountable to his company’s client.

The Aiken Corporation’s stated mission is to “diversify and expand the City’s economic base and to improve the quality of life in Aiken.” If the first phase of the 25-acre development is approved, one of the organization’s most significant accomplishments in achieving their stated mission over the past ten years will be the sale of a donated property to build 26 generic townhomes and a small strip mall.

The decision on the High Brass development of the ACorp property will take place after the approval process for adding $20 million to the City’s budget to pursue the SRNL/Mixed Use office building project in downtown Aiken. The memo for that agenda item states, “City staff is working with Aiken Corporation on an agreement that will be before Council at a future meeting by February.” 

Thus, the disconnect between the City’s commitment to a sole-source contract with Aiken Corporation for a $20 million project, and the absence of tangible major accomplishments by the organization in the past decade, is highly likely to continue unabated.

Footnotes

(1) The basis for the five-percent rule is unknown, even to the Planning Department.

An academic article titled, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SPILLOVER EFFECTS UPON RESIDENTIAL VALUES, did report some basis for this threshold that is common across the region.

“Once commercial development exceeded 5% of the total neighborhood land, property prices would begin to experience a substantial decline. A more recent study by Song and Knaap (2004) drew similar conclusions, showing that commercial development had no negative effect on the property values that they had assessed. The findings showed that housing prices increased as their distance from neighborhood commercial land uses shortened. Furthermore, homeowners that lived within walking distance from the commercial development were likely to pay an additional premium due to improved accessibility. Despite these results, the paper does conclude that the size of a particular commercial development can have powerful effects on neighboring home values and that larger commercial developments are more likely to create a negative impact.”

As reported in The Village at Woodside’s Clever Accounting, the City of Aiken allowed the Village at Woodside development to artificially keep the development under five percent commercial by not including parking lots as commercial space. This accounting scheme involves the Property Owner’s Association holding the deed to the parking lots, and paying less than $25 per year in taxes for those improvements.

(2) Councilwomen Price and Diggs resigned from their ex-officio positions on the Board of the Aiken Corporation in March 2023.  The resignations were tendered to avoid any perceived conflict of interest between their official duties and their role on the ACorp Board. 

The SC Ethics Commission ruled, in an informal opinion, that Council members can serve on the ACorp Boards because it is a nonprofit that was created by, and serves at the pleasure of City Council. However, as reported in The Aiken Corporation-City of Aiken Relationship: Partners, Not Cousins, the Aiken Corporation is a stand-alone organization that was not created by Aiken City Council and does not serve as its pleasure. While the City of Aiken could deprive ACorp of city taxpayer funds, it cannot dissolve the organization. Councilwomen Price’s and Digg’s decisions to resign were certainly proper, and arguably necessary.

(3) The May 2023 minutes read:

“25-Acre Parcel Contract and Discussion — Before the discussion, (Board member) Ms. Karen Daly was asked to recuse herself and she left the room. 

Mr. Pat Cunning reported that Southeastern withdrew their contract offer from the 25-acre property. The Executive Committee met to decide if they wanted to hire a realtor to get an appraisal on the property or complete a market study. If they move forward with hiring a realtor, they would like to hire Meybohm Realty and use Ms. Karen Daly as the agent. 

Motion was made by Mr. Norman Dungan and seconded by Ms. Martha Lockhart to allow the Executive Committee to work out a final arrangement with Meybohn Realty with Ms. Karen Daly as representative agent. 

Once the Executive Committee reaches an agreement, the 
Chairman of the Corporation is authorized to sign such agreements, including a listing agreement as the Executive Committee may determine, and to complete a market analysis of the 25-acre 
parcel on York Street. The motion was unanimously approved.”

January 2024, Savannah River Site

“Appalling” and “Abysmal”

4 Comments

How the Department of Energy addressed Governor McMaster’s and Attorney General Alan Wilson’s conflicting and sometimes harsh opinions regarding the future of surplus plutonium.

by Don Moniak
January 22, 2024

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Final Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement (SPDEIS) was completed last month and announced in the Federal Register this past Friday, January 19th.  A Record of Decision (ROD) is expected sometime in February, although that ROD might not result in any actual plans.

The Final SPDEIS is the fifth National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis addressing all or parts of 61.5 metric tons (MT) of surplus plutonium that has been conducted in the past three decades. During that time, the DOE/NNSA’s various contractors have processed and disposed of less than five tons of the surplus stockpile, and spent billions of dollars on a failed plutonium/Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel factory originally intended to handle up to eighty percent of the surplus material. Major changes in plans have occurred at least five times.

The latest analysis was released almost twenty-seven years to the day of the the 1997 Record of Decision to consolidate all surplus, “non-pit” plutonium at DOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS) for up to fifty years; nearly sixteen tons at the time but later reduced to about twelve tons.  Less than a ton of surplus plutonium has since been removed from the site.

Controversy over the storage decision began in 2002, and eventually resulted in the $600 million settlement between the federal government and the State of South Carolina in August 2020. That settlement requires DOE/NNSA to remove 9.5 metric tons from SRS by 2037. If the recent rate of transfer of plutonium waste from SRS to WIPP continues, that task will not be completed until well after 2040.

In the meantime, more than forty additional tons could be imported into South Carolina, stored, and then processed into waste over the next three to four decades. Several more tons of non-surplus plutonium is scheduled to be transported to SRS for the job of producing new plutonium pits for the weapons arsenal.

The Final SPDEIS nearly mirrors the Draft SPDEIS released in January 2023; summarized in Feds Propose 27 More Tons of Plutonium for Processing at Savannah River Site.  The preferred alternative and associated sub-alternatives remains the same: Use some combination of capabilities at SRS and Los Alamos to convert upwards of 34 metric tons (MT) of surplus military grade plutonium to plutonium oxide powder, dilute the plutonium into a less easily retrievable waste form, and dispose of that waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). 

The proposed action (Figure 1) does not commit to a specific plan. SRS could be assigned the whole job, part of the job, or very little of the job. 

Figure 1: Simplified version of DOE/NNSA’s proposed action to dispose of up to 34 metric tons of surplus military-grade plutonium. The total includes approximately 27 tons of plutonium within weapon components known as “pits,” which are the primary nuclear trigger in the U.S. arsenal; and 7.0 tons of already separated plutonium in metal or powder form.



Since January 2023, sixteen changes were made to the nearly one-thousand-page record, in response to 121 written comments submitted during the two month public comment period, and 53 oral comments made during three in-person public meetings and one Zoom call. The public comment process was incredibly subdued in comparison to the competitive spirit between weapons communities in the late 1990s; when thousands of comments were submitted, hundreds spoke at public hearings, and Senator Strom Thurmond described weapons workers in Texas as “amateurs.” (Comments and responses are contained in Volume III of the SPDEIS.)

Three of the submitted comments were from the South Carolina Congressional Delegation, Governor Henry McMaster, and Attorney General Alan Wilson. 

The comments and concerns from our elected representatives had several contradictory themes:

  • An obsession with long-term plutonium storage, but a near absence of concern about the most pivotal aspect of the program—the future availability of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for disposal of the final plutonium wastes produced at SRS (most likely) or LANL (least likely). 
  • Skepticism to outright hostility towards DOE/NNSA, but strong support for the DOE’s Savannah River Site and its contract workforce.
  • Support for the more dangerous task of importing and processing more than forty tons of plutonium at SRS, but opposition to the more benign task of long-term storage. This is in keeping with the nearly decade-old tradition of South Carolina political leaders of welcoming plutonium into the state, but terming above-ground, long-term plutonium storage as “plutonium dumping.” 

DOE/NNSA’s responses to the comments from SC elected officials were uniformly finalized as:

“These comments did not result in a modification in the Final EIS.”

The most strident comments (Figure 2) were made by Attorney General Wilson, which included, in bold type, that:

“DOE/NNSA has an appalling record of not following through on its promises or projects. Its project management is abysmal, and South Carolina’s pessimism of DOE/NNA’s ability to implement any proposed alternative is well earned.” 

Wilson also wrote that, “DOE/NNNSA must be committed to removing the weapons grade plutonium on a schedule that ensures that South Carolina is not the dumping ground for such plutonium.” DOE/NNSA did not commit to any schedule, and Wilson’s comments “did not result in a modification to the Final EIS.”

Figure 2. Comments made by Attorney General Alan Wilson, with reference to DOE/NNSA’s response. (Highlighting is in the original document)


Wilson’s most harsh comment was lumped into the response category of “General Opposition to SPDP and NNSA/DOE.”  In other words, AG Wilson’s comments were not well accepted by the federal government. 

Such objections in the past have resulted in thinly veiled threats from NNSA. In 2018, a State of South Carolina lawsuit led by Wilson that opposed NNSA’s decision to terminate the MOX program resulted in the prospect to move tritium production operations from SRS:

“In light of this injunction, NNSA must reevaluate the viability to execute enduring missions at the Savannah River Site.”

Comments from the Governor’s office were more tactful. Governor McMaster wrote that his support for decades of more plutonium processing at SRS should “not be construed as support for long-term storage of surplus plutonium in South Carolina.” Because of his concern that “South Carolina not become a permanent plutonium repository,” McMaster asked NNSA to “conduct regular, direct, and detailed briefings with me and members of my staff.” (Page 229 of comments)

To this request, the DOE/NNSA merely responded that “NNSA has committed to periodic briefings on progress toward meeting the removal commitment to the Governor and the Attorney General of South Carolina.”

Of course, the Governor’s comments “did not result in a modification in the Final EIS.”

The Congressional Delegation’s joint letter was the least combative and most diplomatic, stating only that “NNSA does not have the greatest track-record with the State regarding a follow-through on commitments.” The delegation also asked for updates, continued operation of WIPP, compliance with legal obligations, and “maximum possible transparency;” while stating “ we are not supportive of long-term storage of surplus plutonium storage in South Carolina.” (Page 223).

Overall, DOE/NNSA issued platitudes to South Carolina’s highest elected officials, committed only to a minimal level of compliance and token updates on its progress, and refused to set a hard schedule for removal of plutonium. Again, there were no modifications of the Final EIS as a result of the delegation’s concerns.

DOE/NNSA’s responses are to be expected when, on the one hand, political leaders express full support for Savannah River Site, its corporate contractors, and the prospect of importing and processing more than forty additional tons of plutonium (Figure 3) into South Carolina; while on the other hand expressing distrust in the same federal cabinet agency that owns and oversees the Savannah River Site to merely store the material during the same time period.

Figure 3: Diagram in the SPDEIS showing the various forms of surplus plutonium and their future pathways. DOE/NNSA remains undecided on how to move forward with 18 tons, and has only disposed of less than five tons (3.2 MT of “scraps, residues” were transferred from Rocky Flats to WIPP in the early 2000s; and SRS has shipped less than 1 MT to WIPP since 2018.)



Footnotes

(1) Regarding the DOE/NNSA response methodology.

In the past, DOE printed individual comments with responses on an opposing column on the same page. Concerned parties who took the time to comment on matters affecting their communities and their constituents could see responses to their concerns without exerting any additional effort.

In Volume III of the Final SPDEIS, DOE employed a torturous response method. The agency’s contractor first sorted all comments into nearly thirty categories. These were followed by the actual comments. Determining DOE’s response to individual comments requires the concerned party to backtrack to the category of concern. For example, Attorney General Wilson would have to refer

For example, to determine DOE’s response to comments by Attorney General Alan Wilson published on page 255 of the comment section, the AG’s office would have to backtrack to five different response groupings on five separate pages.

The system is symbolic of the general attitude of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Agency; that “you the people” work for “us the government.”

(2) The plan does not involve changing the isotopic composition for the plutonium to make it less attractive for re-use in the nation’s nuclear arsenal.