Aiken County Council recently approved spending more than a million dollars to address urgent wastewater and stormwater problems. The funds involve replacing “cheaper” equipment at the County’s wastewater plant, and repairing and cleaning a faulty, County-owned stormwater pond. Continued heavy development is expected to stress the wastewater treatment plant, and stormwater management programs.
by Don Moniak February 29, 2024
On Tuesday, February 20th, Aiken County Council held its fourth set of public meetings this calendar year.
The sessions began at 5 p.m with the three-person Development Committee convening to discuss and approve a series of resolutions for the “consent agenda.” (1) Two of the resolutions involved emergency expenditures to resolve serious problems with wastewater treatment and stormwater runoff. Three other resolutions were related to stormwater management, and one additional resolution pertained to the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant.
Cheap is Expensive
The first order of the Development Committee’s business was a resolution to spend $860,708 to purchase essential equipment for Aiken County’s Horse Creek Wastewater Plant. Due to recent sewage pump failures, the County is spending upwards of $200,000 per month for rental pumps and associated diesel costs. (see Meeting documents, pages 20-25).
The plant was designed and constructed in 1970’s, in the wake of the passage of the Federal Clean Water Act, and went online in 1979. Among its many accomplishments since then, it was credited with improving Horse Creek water quality enough to allow for fish populations to recover in what was a biologically sterile Langley Pond (2). (However, fish consumption advisories still remain in place.)
The plant traditionally used Patterson brand pumps in plant operations. This brand of pumps reportedly lasted more than three decades, with minimal problems. After the County switched to what County Administrator Brian Sanders termed a “cheaper grade of pump,” serious issues began within several years.
This time, the County wisely opted to skip the bidding process and go with a sole-source contract for higher quality, Patterson sewage pumps and replacement pump bowl assemblies.
The replacement process will take six months; the pumps themselves take four months to build. Until then, the County will keep spending hundreds of thousands on a bandaid solution—a case study in the oftentimes high costs of low cost.
The good news for the plant is that Council also approved a resolution to accept a $5 million grant for plant upgrades from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; illustrating again that in terms of outside financial aid and economic support, the federal government remains Aiken County’s best friend.
Figure 1. An example of Patterson Axial Flow Wastewater Pump. Aiken County has ordered a Patterson Axial Flow Pump Model 24×30 SAFV at a cost of $360,032 with a rating of 18,883 gallons per minute at 22.5 feet, which is smaller model than the one shown above. Fuller details of Patterson Pumps are available in this brochure.
Bad Pond
The second most expensive resolution passed during the meeting involved $247,000 (3) for emergency repairs and cleanup of a 2.6 acre stormwater pond property (Pages 31-36).
Aiken County owns 73 stormwater ponds, and most involve residential subdivisions. One of these ponds that is designed to control stormwater runoff from Gregs Mill at Horse Creek (Figure 2) is close to failure. The pond was purchased from Beazley Development in 2009 by Aiken County for $10; a “deed of dedication” that is one of many examples of a developer’s private liability being assumed by county taxpayers. (4)
The County’s current stormwater pond maintenance and repair contractor, Brown’s Grounds of North Augusta, described the problem, in part, as follows:
“The outfall pipe is sticking about 8 feet straight out of the dam slope suspended in the air due to severe erosion that has eaten a hole roughly 18 feet deep and 30 feet wide around this area. The end of the pipe is eroded and water is going through the pipe instead of the end of the pipe. A new Flare needs to be attached to help control the water flow. The erosion has caused a 20 foot section of the fence to be suspended in the air with a trough about 8 feet deep running under the fence into the adjacent property. The silt from all of this erosion has been pushed through the woods causing a trench about 4 feet wide and 100 feet long.”
The first estimate for repairs and cleanup, made on January 4, 2024, was $110,020. With the situation worsening after heavy rains, further threatening the Sunset Memorial Gardens cemetery below the pond, the estimate for the emergency work has rose to $247,000.
Figure 2. County-owned pond (center) near junction of Sudlow Lake Road and U.S. Highway 1. Cemetery is left, to the SW.
Pond Inspections.
The question arises: If five to ten ponds were to be damaged or fail during a major storm event—say 10 or more inches in 24-48 hours—how many millions of dollars would County taxpayers be on the hook for repair costs?
County officials are proposing a $2 million line item for unspecified “drainage projects” in the upcoming Capital Project Sales Tax referendum. During a recent discussion of this tax and spend proposal, County Administrator Brian Sanders stated that, “we know drainage issues are going to come up,” citing “too much development.”(5)
Monitoring and inspection of the ponds could help prevent future failures. Following the $247,000 stormwater pond repair resolution, Council approved another resolution to spend a mere $4,500 for Brown’s Grounds to inspect 30 county-owned ponds; 24 of which control stormwater from residential subdivisions.
“Stormwater Improvements”
Prior to the $247,000 pond repair and cleanup resolution, the Committee also approved a seemingly unrelated matter: acceptance of a “Deed of Dedication for an extension of Hartshorn Circle (C-3013), and Certain Stormwater Improvements in the Providence, Phase C2 Subdivision” of Trolley Run Station.(Figure 3)
While there were no financial costs yet associated with this resolution, it reflects why “too much development” will inevitably lead to more stormwater problems.
“Stormwater Improvements” is a bureaucratic misnomer; more proper terms for future deeds of dedication resolutions should be “stormwater controls” or “stormwater mitigation” projects.
Developments involving clearcutting of forestlands and stripping all the ground cover creates the necessity for stormwater control. There is rarely a need for “improvements” on undeveloped forestlands—the optimal watershed protection land condition.
Figure 3. Area of recent deed of dedication in Trolley Run Station; 2014 (bottom) vs. 2023 (top). The forested area shown in 2014 required no “stormwater improvements.” Note how the older portion of the massive subdivision (lower left) involved retention of a forested buffer.
Footnotes
(1) Committee meetings consist of three council members addressing, sometimes discussing, and then voting on resolutions that do not, by County law, require public hearings.
Instead, the resolutions are compiled into a “consent agenda” that Council votes upon as a whole during the regular meeting. The list of resolutions can include items as disparate as multimillion dollar property purchases, naming of private roads for the 911 system, ordering expensive equipment to meet immediate needs, and approving contract change orders. There is rarely a nay vote during deliberations.
“Discussion” is too strong a word to use for the February 20th meeting. The Development Committee spent 15 minutes reviewing 10 resolutions. There were no questions asked regarding the wastewater plant resolution, and few comments or questions regarding stormwater management issues.
(2) Conditions in Langley Pond following the beginning of Horse Creek Wastewater Plant operations were summed up in the abstract to the 1986 DHEC publication A Water Quality Assessment of Langley Pond; Aiken County, South Carolina. An Analysis of Sediment and Fish Tissue Data. (by Douglas Darr).
(3) Since Aiken County collects a $10 stormwater fee come property tax time, the expenditure amounts to 24,700 individual stormwater fee payments.
(4) Drainage easements are another County expense resulting from heavy development. Council also approved another resolution pertaining to stormwater control (Pages 41-45); an $83,000 purchase of a 1.65 acre drainage easement from Clifton Place Partner’s LLC—-one of several firms involved in new residential development along the Whiskey Road-Powderhouse Road connector project.
The easement purchase on undeveloped land between Powderhouse and Whiskey Roads was justified as part of the Whiskey Road Corridor Drainage Project, which is being funded in part from CPST funds approved in 2018.
(5) Statement made on Wednesday, February 28, 2024 during the Capital Project Sales Tax Study Committee meeting. Three Council members compose the committee reviewing the County’s proposed tax and spend proposals.
Other stories regarding water quality water use, stormwater, and wastewaster issues:
The Pascalis Project Overlap; Legislative Intent, and South Carolina’s $100 million subsidy for the Federal Government.
by Don Moniak February 26, 2024
The $20 million “Mixed-Use Building Project” is intended for use by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) management and operations contractor, Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA).*
The project was pursued behind closed doors for nearly a year, and then publicly presented January 23, 2023, as a three-story, 45,000-square-foot “SRNL Workforce Development Center” to be located on city-owned property along Richland Avenue and Newberry Street.
During the next eight months, the three-story project had devolved to a 36,000-square-foot facility that was rebranded as the Aiken Corporation’s “Mixed-Use Building Project,” with a new location on Aiken Corporation property on Newberry Street, NW. In both scenarios, the SRNL contractor would occupy the top two floors—24,000 to 30,000 square feet of space.
In response to questions and concerns, additional project information has recently been provided by South Carolina State Senator and Aiken County Legislative Delegation Chairman Tom Young* (R-Aiken). In a five-page letter that includes seven reference documents, he presented the legislative basis for, and defense of, the project. The highlights of the package include:
A June 22, 2022, site selection letter from SRNL Director Dr. Vahid Majidi stating a preference for a downtown Aiken location within the Project Pascalis footprint; and citing the Pascalis project as a motivating factor for the preferred location.
A more complete legislative timeline for the $20 million allocation of SRS/plutonium settlement funds for “SRS/National Lab Offsite Infrastructure—Aiken Innovation District.” The letter makes the case that the existing project still meets the broad, overall legislative intent of the Aiken delegation and the General Assembly—with the obvious caveat being that the funding is for the SRNL”s Battelle Savannah River Alliance. (Proposed contractual language between the City of Aiken and the future owner could insure that this intent is met.)
A larger plan by the State of South Carolina’s three major universities to subsidize the SRNL contract workforce with additional state funding of up to $100 million. Last year the SC Legislature allocated $40 million for this workforce development program. Nearly $20 million was later dedicated by Clemson, USC, and SC State “professional development of of SRNL employees;” while less than $4 million was dedicated to undergraduate scholarships.
(*Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) is owned by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). SRNL is managed and operated under a contract between DOE and Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA). BSRA is owned by the Battelle Memorial Institute. The alliance consists of five subcontractors: Clemson University, South Carolina State University (SCSU), University of South Carolina (USC), Georgia Tech, and University of Georgia. The latter two are not subjects in this particular story.)
Figure 1: Portion of June 22, 2022, letter from SRNL Director Dr. Vihad Majidi to Aiken Chamber of Commerce President David Jameson. The full letter can be viewed here, on Page 14.
The SRNL Site Selection Letter and Project Pascalis
On June 22, 2022, SRNL Director Dr. Vihad Majidi sent a letter to Aiken Chamber of Commerce President David Jameson (1) regarding the $20 million project (Figure 1). In the letter, the Director expressed a preference for downtown Aiken, the reasoning behind that preference, and identified three candidates for facility ownership—The City of Aiken, the AMDC, or the Aiken Corporation.(2)
The Pascalis project itself was a motivating factor for the downtown Aiken location; one within the Project Pascalis demolition and redevelopment zone (3). Dr. Majidi wrote, in part, that:
“SRNL’s preference is the downtown site valued at $3.6 million that will be contributed by the City of Aiken. This is very attractive because of the walking distance proximity to many restaurants and retail stores, as well as planned new hotel, conference center, parking garage, and apartments that would be completed about the same time as this facility would come on-line.” (emphasis added)
One reason the lab space could have fit within the Pascalis project footprint is that, two months earlier, new location was proposed for a conference center. Instead of being in the Pascalis project footprint, it was to be moved to the soon-to-be vacated Aiken Municipal building at 214 Park Avenue, SW. The conference center size was at least 25,000 square feet—about the same amount of space sought by SRNL.
Thus, at the height of the Project Pascalis, the SRNL Director proposed becoming a part of that troubled and soon-to-fail project; taking the same approach that greatly contributed the Project Pascalis failure—make official decisions first, then solicit citizen input and buy-in.
Legislative Intent of the Downtown SRNL Project
For nearly six months, inquiries have been made to members of Aiken County’s State Legislative Delegation regarding the $20 million SRNL project.
The inquiries included the following questions:
a. How can a private non-governmental organization, the Aiken Corporation, be the developer and owner of a $20 million, publicly funded building, especially without a competitive bidding process?
b. If the Aiken Corporation owned the building, the SRNL contractor did not renew its lease, and Aiken Corporation found a new tenant, how could this not be a misappropriation of funds? This question became more pertinent as long-term lease arrangements with DOE/SRNL’s operating contractor failed to materialize; as DOE/SRNL tentatively has agreed only to one-year, renewable leases.
This past Wednesday, February 21st, State Senator Tom Young provided some answers to these questions. In summary, his letter outlined the overall legislative intent behind the SRS/National Lab Offsite Infrastructure” project; which is related to a much larger State of South Carolina commitment to DOE/SRNL’s management and operating contract with BSRA. In short, the history behind this legislative process (4) and subsequent funding accountability process follows this timeline:
Summer, 2020. BSRA lobbied Governor Henry McMaster for $120 million of State funding in support of the BSRA contract. Governor McMaster then committed, in August 2020 and just prior to the plutonium settlement, $100 million on behalf of the state’s three major universities for their role in the Battelle-led alliance.
December 2020: Governor McMaster submitted his plutonium settlement allocation proposal to the legislature, asking that only the three counties contiguous to SRS receive funds. The proposal included $120 million for the BSRA contract with SRNL.
2021 to 2022. Legislative negotiations ensued, during which “legislative leadership made it clear that any settlement funds allocated within the region would have to be for infrastructure projects related to workforce development, education, and/or economic development infrastructure.”
June 2022. The South Carolina legislature gave final approval of $20 million for the initial stage of investment, titled “SRS/National Lab Offsite Infrastructure—Aiken Innovation District.” The funding was for Aiken County; but the unwritten intent of the local delegation was for SRNL to choose a site at USC-Aiken, the City of Aiken, or the City of North Augusta.
June 22, 2022. SRNL Director Majidi wrote to the Chamber of Commerce to express a site preference for a downtown Aiken that was going to be transformed by Project Pascalis, and facility ownership by the City of Aiken, AMDC, or Aiken Corporation.
January 2023 to June 2023. The City of Aiken first submitted its funding request to Aiken County, who forwarded it to the legislature’s Joint Bond Review Committee (JBRC), which then approved the request.
It is evident that, in the big picture, the SRNL/“Mixed-Use” project as currently structured fits the broadest intent of the $20 million dollar legislative funding decision. The State of South Carolina committed to SRNL workplace development by the three major universities, and the SRNL leadership selected Aiken Corporation as a facility ownership candidate.
The caveat is that the facility must still meet its originally stated purpose of SRNL offsite infrastructure. As recently reported, this was almost not the case. When leasing negotiations between DOE/SRNL, Battelle, Aiken Corporation, and City of Aiken faltered, consideration was given to Aiken Corporation ownership even in the absence of a DOE/SRNL approved leasing agreement with Battelle.
This option should be negated by a provision in the proposed City of Aiken “Framework Agreement with the Aiken Corporation for the Savannah River National Laboratory Multi-Use Building.”(5)
The proposed agreement involves a complicated and complicated arrangement whereby the City of Aiken:
Purchases property currently owned by the Aiken Corporation property, and then constructs the facility on the property for SRNL’s use.
Sells the property and the building to a “to-be-formed” entity controlled by the Aiken Corporation. The total sale price will be based on the final construction costs and the original property price.
The yet-to-be-formed Aiken Corporation-controlled real estate entity will make the purchase from the City of Aiken through a loan from the City of Aiken.
The yet-to-be-formed real estate entity will lease the facility to the SRNL operating contractor, BSRA, or any future contractor.
A deed restriction is proposed that could prevent the Aiken Corporation’s new real estate entity from leasing to a party other than an SRNL contractor:
“City and Corporation anticipate that when the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the City of Aiken Building Inspector, the SPE will purchase, and the City will transfer ownership of, the multi-use building and the Property pursuant to the terms of a subsequent Purchase Sale Agreement [“PSA JI] to be negotiated between the parties, which will, among other terms, specify a deed restriction providing for return of the subject property to the City should the SPE no longer desire to own or lease the building to an appropriate client.” (emphasis added).
South Carolina Subsidizing the Federal Government.
The $20 million SRNL/“Mixed Use” Building Project is only twenty percent of taxpayer funds the State of South Carolina is investing in the BSRA contract. The SC legislature is conducting an installment plan of sorts for Governor Henry McMaster’s $100 million commitment to the Battelle contract—first made in 2020. (In contrast, subcontractors Georgia Tech and UGA committed $5.0 million and $3.2 million to workforce development, respectively.)
The second installment is a $40 million allocation that was approved for the 2023-2024 state budget during the last legislative session.
Following the funding approval, Clemson University, SC State, and USC developed a three-year funding implementation plan titled “Research Partnershps and Workforce Training Programs: In support of the Battelle Savannah River Alliance Savannah River National Laboratory.” (Attachment E)
Writing on behalf of both SRNL and BSRA, SRNL Director Majidi endorsed the “Collaborative Workforce Development Plant” on October 28, 2023, writing that the three universities will “educate and train the future workforce of the Lab and enable workforce development for South Carolina.” The plan was subsequently approved by the SC Committee on Higher Education on December 7, 2023, and is now in effect.
The workforce development plan itself states the primary goal is to “provide SRNL with a pipeline for new talent acquisition by recruiting and educating the state’s residents while also bringing in additional talent from around the region. This initiative will also further the careers of the existing employee base at SRNL.” (emphasis original)
The funding is heavily tilted towards the latter, as $19.5 million from the $40 million program involves “Professional Development of SRNL Employees.” In contrast, less than $8 million is dedicated to undergraduate and graduate programs combined.
In short, the State of South Carolina has already allocated $60 million for workforce development for a U.S. Department of Energy institution—Savannah River National Laboratory—and intends to spend another $40 million.
The first $20 million is for a facility in the high-rent district of downtown Aiken to be operated by a private organization. The second round of $40 million involves the three main universities spending 2.5 times more on furthering the careers of federal government contract employees than on undergraduate and graduate programs combined.
The Battelle Savannah River Alliance contract essentially is subcontracting the three Universities to provide an apprenticeship program for a federal facility, and use state taxpayer dollars to fund career advancement for federal contract employees.
Footnotes
(1) While Mr. Jameson was a member of the AMDC at the time, the letter was addressed to him in his official capacity as Chamber of Commerce President—instead of being addressed to AMDC Chairman Keith Wood and/or Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon.
(2) The reasoning behind the ownership options is suggested by Dr. Majidi’s prefaced the ownership options by writing, “based on the source of the funds.”
The plutonium funds derived from a settlement between South Carolina and the federal government regarding South Carolina’s lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) due to plutonium storage issues at Savannah River Site.
The reasoning was that USC-Aiken, as of the Battelle-led alliance which included USC, could not own a facility paid for with plutonium settlement funds—-which would create the image of the Plaintiff returning settlement money to the Defendant. It could also create difficulties during future SRNL contract bidding, since BSRA could claim the building as an asset in any future bid.
(3) In early 2023, the originally proposed properties for the SRNL office space included:
a. The vacant Holley House motel adjacent to the Hotel Aiken, which was purchased by the AMDC in November 2021 for $2.125 million.
b. Portions of the properties between the Holley House and Newberry Hall that were collectively purchased for $2.0 million by the AMDC.
* The author would like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Tom Young. Senator Young, who led the very difficult and challenging plutonium settlement disbursement negotiations, has proven very open to addressing questions about the process, the results, and any ongoing issues. He tasked the Senate Staff with researching this issue, and in the midst of the 2024 legislative session, he responded to this author’s questions and concerns with a 5-page letter with seven supporting documents that illustrate his attention to details in the legislative process, from start to end to implementation.
With the increase in nuclear weapons materials and parts production work, the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) short-term office space needs are unlikely to be satisfied by the City of Aiken’s proposed, $20 million, downtown, rooftop-terraced, “Mixed-Use” office building being constructed on behalf of the private, nonprofit Aiken Corporation and its new, yet-to-be-named for-profit property management company.
The target date for the completion of the facility is February 2026. Even if SRNL’s operating contactor moves at that time, this new facility that is being squeezed onto a one-acre space will also not accommodate any future office space needs.
by Don Moniak February 17, 2024
According to workforce statistics, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) labor force increased from 11,420 to 12,818 employees between September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2023 (Table 1).
DOE’s three major site contractors now have larger workforces. These are:
Primary management and operating contractor Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS).
Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC), which is charged solely with stabilization of the site’s high-level “liquid” radioactive waste.
Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL).
The site’s paramilitary physical security contractor, Centerra, maintained a steady employee base; as did the Savannah River Ecology Lab, the U.S. Forest Service, power generator Ameresco, and the DOE federal employee labor force.
During the same time period, the Lab’s workforce increased from 1,052 to 1,310 employees; the largest percent increase of any of the four contractors.
Table 1: Recent SRS and SRNL Workforce Changes
Employer
9/30/21
12/31/23
Percent Change
SRS Total
11,420
12,818
+12.2
SRNL Total
1,052
1,310
+24.5
SRNL —NNSA
578
772
+33.6
SRNL — Environmental Mgmt
271
256
-5.6
SRNL- Other
203
282
+38.9
Most of the employee growth across the site is due to the increased number working on DOE National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) tasks. The NNSA is the DOE’s “semi-autonomous” weapons agency, tasked with the department’s nuclear weapons maintenance, production, and security missions.
The two primary nuclear weapons programs at SRS are:
Ongoing production of tritium gas, which is used to boost the explosive power of nuclear weaponry. The purified gas is loaded into stainless steel “reservoirs” which contain an average of about four grams of tritium gas.
Planned production of nuclear weapon primary explosive components commonly referred to as “plutonium pits.” Design work for a new pit fabrication plant is currently ongoing.
The employee increases are largely due to this new plutonium pit production mission (Table 2). This was to be expected, as Savannah River Nuclear Solutions CEO Stuart MacVean wrote in the Aiken Standard in December 2022 that, “We’ll hire over 4,000 more to aid in bringing the facility on-line as close to 2030 as possible.”
More and more of the site workforce is categorized as carrying out NNSA missions. The increase for Savannah River Nuclear Solutions is entirely attributable to NNSA missions: 75% of the SRNL employee increase are from assignments to NNSA work.
Only Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC), which is charged with stabilizing the most dangerous, Cold War legacy radioactive wastes known as “tank waste,” added more Environmental Management (EM) workers.
Table 2: Workforce trends: weapons programs (NNSA) vs. environmental remediation and radioactive waste stabilization programs programs (EM).
Employer
9/30/21
12/31/23
Percent Change.
SRS Total
11,420
12,818
+12.2
SRS — NNSA Missions
4,014
5,110
+27.3
SRS – EM Missions
6,902
6,720
-2.6
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions: Total
5,795
6,733
+16.2
SRNS – NNSA Missions
3,209
4,311
+34.4
SRNS – EM Missions
2,309
2,265
-1.9
SRMC (formerly SRR/Parsons)
3,174
3,417
+7.7
SRS Physical Security—Centerra
671
678
+1.0
Figure 1: Sign outside of Centennial Drive office complex.
Finding Off-Site Space
The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) is mostly confined to “A-Area” at SRS, which is dominated by aging buildings. Space is so limited that at least seven modular office buildings (see cover photo) are used to house the overflow. (1) There is a strong desire for off-site office space to alleviate overcrowding, reduce security requirements, and ease congestion at the guarded entrance gates. (2)
One touted solution, first announced in January 2023, was a “Workforce Development Center” in downtown Aiken, in close proximity to the downtown satellite offices of several other DOE/SRS contractors and subcontractors. The facility is funded with a $20 million allocation from the State of South Carolina’s SRS/plutonium settlement fund for the purpose of “SRS/National Laboratory Off-Site Infrastructure.”
The project has devolved from an “SRNL Workforce Development Center,” to a “Mixed-Use” office building to be constructed by the City and owned by Aiken Corporation—the private, nonprofit “partner” of the City since the late 1990s. The two parties hope that BSRA, and any future lab operating contractor will be a long-term tenant, but DOE/SRNL remains noncommittal beyond a one-year, renewable lease.
As described in City of Aiken Takes Control of Downtown Mixed-Use/SRNL Building Project, since March 2023, DOE/SRNL and BSRA have been negotiating with both the Aiken Corporation and the City of Aiken to lease space in a the downtown office building. The facility would house only up to 100 employees—less than 8% of the current lab workforce.
However, according to the City of Aiken’s contract with the architectural firm of Cheatham, Fletcher, and Scott, the downtown office building is not expected to be completed until February 2026. (Table 3)
Table 3: Timeline and Costs for the Downtown Aiken “Mixed-Use” Office Building Project
Final Design Due Date
May 20, 2024
Construction Start Date
December 16, 2024
Construction Completion Date
~February 2026
Design Contract Award
Not provided
Construction Budget
$14.4 million
Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Budget
$1.3 million
Land Acquisition Cost
$0.72 million
During recent negotiations, SRNL Assistant Director Dr. Sharon Marra twice related to the City/ACorp partnership that “we need the space,” implying a shorter term need. Ms. Marra also made reference to a “free building”—apparently in the context of the Mixed-Use Building lease. A rent-free alternative that avoids the need for federal funds to pay for the lease is a possibility that has remain unexplored during public debate.
In another city official’s email, Lab Director Dr. Vahid Majidi was asked about his inquiries into office space availability on Centennial Drive in South Aiken. That office complex consists of four 54,000-square-foot office buildings. (3)
Various DOE contractors have occupied portions of this office complex off and on for decade. One building entrance still houses a “URS” sign. There is currently a sign advertising 39,450 square feet of office space—ten percent more than what is being planned for downtown.
The lab appears to need some additional space now, preferably closer to its fellow contractors in downtown Aiken. No matter what happens with the downtown Aiken “Mixed-Use” building, SRNL is likely going to need more than 36,000 square feet of space to accommodate recent and future growth; and sooner rather than later. However, the City of Aiken has declined to pursue any location, such as the County-owned Old Hospital property or its Jackson Petroleum site at Williamsburg Street, that would allow for such growth.
Footnote
(1) As reported in A Shrub Grows in Aiken, which in part addressed DOE’s new “Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative” on the campus of USC-Aiken:
“According to its physical property inventory, SRNL has seven modular office buildings to supplement what City Councilman Ed Woltz described during the latest State of the City address as “remote, aged facilities.” Close to 1,000 SRNL workers and researchers will continue to work in the aged facilities behind the SRS gates and fences, not within ‘walking distance proximity to cultural amenities, dining, and retail stores’ that was one criteria for the downtown SRNL office building.”
That figure of more 1,000 must now be updated to more than 1,200 and growing.
(2) Another motivating factor could be safety. The lab works with significant quantities of radioactive and other toxic materials. The ventilation system is old—more than a hundred million dollars of maintenance and improvements were identified in the early 2000s. The extent of upgrades is unknown, but the recommendation at the time was to only address major needs. needs and has been in need of repairs since the early 2000s.
As reported in How Safe Were Millions of Safe Hours, in July 2022 Building 772-A was evacuated due to the failure of portable air compressors for radiological exhaust systems. Employees who do are not assigned to actual laboratory tasks would be out of harms way in the event of any similar future incidents.
However, the talking point of “access to dining and cultural amenities” for the 5-8 percent of the lab workforce that would occupy a downtown building is dubious at best. These criteria for an office space location are clearly intended more for visiting dignitaries, Executives from technology transfer partner companies, and other National Lab scientists and researchers. This is evidenced by the desire for a “rooftop gathering place,” labeled as a covered terrace on the first conceptual design.
(3) An email to Dr. Majidi asking about the search for additional space was not answered.
The City of Aiken has issued an Request for Proposals for construction of the proposed $20 million “Mixed-Use” Office Building in downtown Aiken; and announced a Public Project Review Hearing for March 12th.
Prior to this action, the Aiken Corporation was acting as the City’s sole-source contractor managing the project, and charged with negotiating a lease with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) and its operating contractor, Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA). This setup created a high degree of fiscal and logistical inefficiencies, and required approval of actions by an unelected, unappointed, inexperienced, and marginally accountable third party.
Just as the project changed in early 2023 from the “Savannah River National Laboratory Workforce Development Center” to a “Mixed-Use Office Building” that might have the SRNL contractor as a tenant, the project has now changed from the “The Aiken Corporation New Mixed-Use Building Project,” to the “City of Aiken New Mixed-Use Building Project.”
The change in project responsibilities is a sensible move. Aiken has the experience and know-how, and city staff was already performing much of the work on behalf of the Aiken Corporation.
However, the architectural firm being utilized by the City was selected through a procurement process conducted by the Aiken Corporation, and not by the City of Aiken; and the future facility ownership by the Aiken Corporation remains questionable. While project advocates hope that Battelle Savannah River Alliance will be the tenant, negotiations remain ongoing and the DOE/SRNL long-term commitment remains underwhelming.
By Don Moniak
Feburary 20, 2024 Update
The City of Aiken’s contract with the architectural firm of Cheatham, Fletcher and Scott is available; buried in the City’s document repository in a newly created “Downtown Redevelopment” folder. The contract provides the data shown in the table below.
The project involves a three-story, 36,000-square-foot office building to be constructed on one acre of vacant property on Newberry St, NW. The land is currently owned by the city’s nonprofit property management business partner, the Aiken Corporation. The organization purchased the land in July 2022 for $650,000, and in the midst of Project Pascalis, and claimed its future would be parking lot.
The stated plan for nearly a year is to construct the building, and transfer ownership to the Aiken Corporation (ACorp). According to a February 17th Aiken Standard article, that remains the plan. An additional step will require the City to first purchase the the Aiken Corporation property.
Thus the City will buy the property, construct the facility, and then transfer it to Aiken Corporation to own and manage. This confusing arrangement means that $20 million of state funds allocated to “SRS/National Laboratory Offsite Infrastructure” will actually become Aiken Corporation infrastructure that may house the DOE/SRNL contractor.
Up to this point, ACorp has been managing the predevelopment process as a sole-source City of Aiken contractor. That contractual process went so far as an Aiken Corporation-issued RFP for architectural services in late November 2023. According to the Aiken Standard story, last week ACorp officially awarded the design contract to the architectural firm of Cheatham Fletcher and Scott.
That firm is now identified in the City’s RFQ/RFP as being retained by the City of Aiken, not the Aiken Corporation:
“The City of Aiken has retained the services of a design consultant team led by Cheatham Fletcher Scott Architects (CFS) to develop the design and to prepare construction documents for the Project.The Project is currently in the early Concept Drawing Design phase.” (1)
In addition to the February 15th RFQ/RFP issuance, this past Friday the City also published in The Aiken Standard its notice of a March 12th Planning Commission Public Hearing that includes a “Project Review for Savannah River National Laboratory.” (Figure 1) The City of Aiken, not the Aiken Corporation, is the applicant. The application has yet to be publicly disclosed.
Final Design Due Date
May 20, 2024
Construction Start Date
December 16, 2024
Construction Completion Date
~February 2026
Design Contract Award
Not provided
Construction Budget
$14.4 million
Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Budget
$1.3 million
Figure 1. February 16, 2024 Public Notice of Public Project Review, published in the Aiken Standard.
The Name Changes:From “SRNL Workforce Development Center” to “Mixed-Use Building” to “Aiken Corporation Mixed-Used Building” to “City of Aiken Mixed-Used Building.”
The downtown office building project is publicly funded with $20 million from the State of South Carolina’s plutonium settlement. Originally titled as Offsite Infrastructure SRS/National Lab, the stated intent in the City’s funding request was to build a 45,000 square foot “Workforce Development Center” on behalf of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). The facility would be occupied by SRNL’s operation and management contractor, Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA, or Battelle).
Since November 2022, the Aiken Corporation has functioned as the City’s sole-source project contractor. It was informally tasked by City officials with managing the project, its involvement was kept a secret for more than two months, and no formal public announcement of this project leadership arrangement was ever made prior to March 2023—perhaps due to trepidation over the Aiken Corporation’s controversial history.
With informal City approval, the Aiken Corporation hired a subcontractor, the architectural firm of McMillan Pazdan and Smith (MPS) to perform early tasks. The stated scope of work could be summarized as goal setting and needs assessment derived from a series of “stakeholder meetings” to be held with “minimal disruptions.” The word “public” was absent from the contract.
A month later, the City formally requested the $20 million of project funding from the State’s plutonium settlement fund. The settlement request form was unequivocally clear that the facility was to be built on behalf of SRNL.
On January 23, 2023, the project was announced with great fanfare at the State of the City Address—but the announcement omitted any mention of Aiken Corporation involvement. A public meeting was promised, and the City subsequently announced a public forum. That meeting was held two weeks later on February 6th and facilitated by MPS. An announcement of a “feasibility study” with a target date of May 1st was made by MPS representative K.J. Jacobs.
On March 13, 2023, Aiken City Council approved a no-bid, $250,000 contract for Aiken Corporation to conduct “pre-development work” and negotiate a lease for the 45,000-square-foot office complex. The contract specified the facility would be located on Richland and Newberry Streets on city-owned commercial properties purchased in November 2021, by the now-defunct Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), as part of its pursuit of the downtown redevelopment effort known as Project Pascalis.
The formal contract, approved three months after work began, officially named MPS as subcontractor for predevelopment services. The three-page scope of work assigned to MPS involved cultural and historic assessments, and “goal setting and programming” that had a heavy dose of public relations management. The scope did not include a site-selection analysis, facility design, or a feasibility study—although both were later completed and published within a single report.
The contract’s scope of work specifically cited SRNL as the only future tenant, and expressed a desire for what could be described as a party venue:
”The facility will house permanent employees as well as a rotating group of university faculty, students, and researchers who will work on critical projects for SRNL as part of a university consortium….There is also a desire for the building to have a rooftop gathering and event space.”
The Aiken Corporation was also contractually tasked with hiring an attorney to assist with lease negotiations. The Aiken law firm of Austin and Pethick had already been retained in early March, and eventually billed ACorp for more than a thousand dollars for preliminary work completed prior to the contract. Subsequent legal fees over the next six months would total more than $10,000.
For the next few months, lease negotiations slowly proceeded, but with no announcements of an agreement. The difficulty of negotiating with a federal contractor bound by complex procurement regulations became increasingly evident. In fact, by June 2023 the negotiating parties had signed a Nondisclosure Agreement, not a Memorandum of Understanding.
The “Mixed Use” Building
Somewhere along the way Aiken Corporation and City officials decided to stop referring to the project as the “SRNL Workforce Development Center.” In May 2023, the project was quietly rebranded as a new “Mixed-Use Building.” A series of guest columns in the Aiken Standard by Mayor Rick Osbon and three Aiken Corporation Board members followed, all praising the future benefits of a “Mixed-Use” facility that might house the SRNL contractor.
A few months later DOE/SRNL officially distanced itself from the site selection and project development process, saying it was only interested in office space if it became available. Unofficially, negotiations continued, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Letter of Intent (LOI) was drafted for review by the ACorp Board.
Then, in September 2023, MPS finally released its well overdue “feasibility report.” Even though no amendments had been made to the ACorp-City of Aiken contract, MPS had considered four additional sites and completed a conceptual design that is still in use—one with the coveted rooftop gathering place in the form of a “covered terrace.”
MPS then made a recommendation to site the facility on the Aiken Corporation-owned Newberry Street, NW, property (Figure 2), and the ACorp Board then unanimously approved locating the $20 million office building constructed on its property. At its September 25th meeting, Aiken City Council gave a warm reception to the site recommendation during an ACorp presentation (2), but never went so far as approving the final site selection.
Figure 2: McMillan Pazdan and Smith’s site conceptual plan for the location of the proposed 3-story, 36,000 square foot “Mixed-Use” office building, with a covered terrace event space on the rooftop.
The Aiken Corporation’s New Mixed-Use Building.
Once the recommendation was made to build on Aiken Corporation property, it became an ACorp project. After months of costly negotations (4), the lack of a lease agreement remained a major hitch in the project. Negotiations between all parties—City, ACorp, DOE/SRNL, and BSRA—had stalled to the point that discussion emerged of an Aiken Corporation-owned building that might not even house lab employees.
The latter scenario was described in one City to Aiken Corporation email (5) as the “you build it and we will consider leasing it” option.
An SRNL official described the conundrum as a typical “chicken and egg” situation—the project could not proceed without a lease, and there could be no lease without the project; or at least some concrete progress to show to DOE’s authorizing officials.
With the uncertainty of the project’s future rising, the solution to provide evidence of progress was for Aiken Corporation to independently move forward with informal City approval. The process is more evidence that the partnership operates under a different set of rules—ones that are unwritten and allow for improvisation.
The Aiken Corporation RFQ bore a strong resemblance to City of Aiken procurement documents, and for good reason—city staff did most of the work. According to City of Aiken emails (6), the Aiken Corporation had no experience with RFQs or RFPs. To accommodate the organization, the city’s Economic Development and Procurement departments coordinated to retain a highly experienced and successful project oversight manager to compile project specifications, turned a rough draft into a finished RFQ, and wrote the RFQ legal notice and then arranged for its publication in the Aiken Standard.
A few weeks after the ACorp RFQ was released, the Department of Energy authorized its SRNL operating contractor to negotiate a one-year lease for the facility, with renewable one-year leases for up to ten years—contrasting sharply with the ten-year office space leases in Aiken County’s Carrol H. Warner Savannah River Research Campus between the County and the DOE/SRNL contractor. In fact, on September 25, 2023, ACorp Board member Pat Cunning told Aiken City Council that,
“The lease will probably be a 10-year lease, with two ten year options. He said a concern is what happens if the Lab does not extend the lease after 10 years. He said he did not think that would happen, but in real estate you have to plan for such things.”
Meanwhile, the City of Aiken released a Request for Qualifications for Real Estate Services to procure a real estate firm to market the Hotel Aiken and the Pascalis properties; properties that eight months earlier had been presented as a sure bet for the SRNL project.
With some leasing commitment—though still no signed papers—in place, Aiken City Council moved forward on January 8, 2024 with an ordinance to incorporate the $20 million of plutonium settlement funds into the City budget. The staff’s supporting memorandum for the budget amendment stated that,
“City staff is working with Aiken Corporation on an agreement that will be before Council at a future meeting in February. “
The budget amendment ordinance was approved unanimously following the first public hearing, and Council granted final unanimous approval following the second public hearing on January 22, 2024.
From that point, it was assumed the Aiken Corporation would continue to formally run the show— if only for appearance sake. The ACorp’s January 10th meeting minutes described Chairman Buzz Rich stating that, “The next step is to hire an architect and start the design work…He plans to meet next with the City Manager to discuss further details.”
The City of Aiken’s New Mixed-Use Building
The next step, as it turned out, was the City of Aiken taking over project management and hiring the architectural firm; one that was selected through the ACorp’s procurement process. Mark Chostner’s Capstone Services—which has overseen project management of the new Public Safety Headquarters and the new Municipal Building—is now listed as being in charge of the City’s, and not Aiken Corporation’s, “owner project management services.”
The City of Aiken routinely procures and manages expensive professional service contracts and multimillion dollar public works projects. Its Procurement department follows standard procedures and avoids legal challenges to its bid awards. In contrast, the Aiken Corporation stumbled through its $250,000 predevelopment contract, and needed city staff and Capstone Services to complete its first and only RFQ this century.
It only makes sense to avoid the use of any third-party surrogate administrator and avoid the kind of increased logistical and fiscal inefficiencies that accompanied the Aiken Corporation’s “predevelopment” contract.
Lingering Questions and Issues
Even though the City’s assumption of project management can be viewed as a welcome development, several lingering, related questions remain.
First, how did the City manage to retain Cheatham Fletcher and Scott as its architectural design firm without going through its own required procurement process? The answer is probably that the city’s Procurement department ensured that the ACorp’s improvised process adhered to standard procedures—but if so the fact remains the City conducted the process through a surrogate that did not have the fiscal or contractual authority to proceed.
Second, who is the future owner of the building? The City of Aiken is now the “owner,” at least during the design and construction contract phases. Aiken Corporation is still the likely final owner and landlord.
The agenda for the Aiken Corporation’s February meeting included “Deliberations, discussions and any motions or resolutions about next steps in the development of the Newberry Street property, including but not limited to a Framework Agreement and a Purchase and Sales Agreement with the city of Aiken.”
According to the Aiken Standard’s Feburary 17th story, that framework is what has been marketed by the City-ACorp partnership since June 2023. The concept is referred to the “Amentum Model,” even though the Amentum Corporation was nonexistent when the property management model was conceived in the early 2000s. It is better titled “The Aiken Corporation Model. “
The Aiken Corporation model means the City would purchase the property from ACorp, construct the facility, transfer the facility back to ACorp, and rent the property itself to ACorp under a long-term ground lease.
That leads to the third question: If the Battelle Savannah River Alliance does sign a one-year lease, but does not renew it in the next several years, will that constitute a misappropriation of the $20 million legislative allocation for “SRS/National Lab Offsite Infrastructure?”
The last two questions could be resolved through the simpler rent-free alternative of the City constructing the facility and then gifting it to the State’s major universities.
Creating a “Workplace Development Center” was one example of the “substantial investment” promised by the State of South Carolina for USC, Clemson, and South Carolina State University to be part of the Battelle alliance. Since the state chose to honor this commitment by allocating $20 million of plutonium settlement funds, our higher education system should be granted ownership, and retain that ownership if and when the SRNL operating contractor ceases to occupy the “City of Aiken’s New Mixed-Use Building.”
Next: “We Need the Space.” and “Aiken Corporation Accomplishments: Mostly Pre-2015”
Footnotes and References
(1) How the City of Aiken retained a design firm without its own official RFP is unknown, and City officials did not respond to questions posed late Friday afternoon about the issue.
The Aiken Corporation RFP and associated legal notice was largely prepared by city staff; and did bear all the markings of the city’s procurement process. However, the ACorp architectural design services RFQ was not authorized by any City Council-approved contract.
(2) As reported in $148,000 For What…., an historic assessment was actually conducted under separate, unannounced contracts between the City of Aiken and McMillan Pazdan and Smith.
(3) With the City’s assistance, Aiken Corporation pursued public support for the project. A September 13, 2023 email from a City official urged dissemination of the ACorp’s new FB page:
“The Aiken Corporation Facebook page is now live and promoting the meetings. Please share with all Aiken Corp and Chamber fiends and contacts and ask that they follow the (Facebook) page and post supportive comments as appropriate.”
“Fiends” was an original typo. Neither the Facebook page nor the Aiken Corporation website devoted to the project have been updated since late September.
A strong showing was also urged for City Council’s September 25, 2024, public meeting, during which the MPS and Aiken Corporation recommendation was presented.
In fact, the Aiken Corporation has accomplished very little since around 2015, after its longtime Chairman Wade Brodie left the organization. Mr. Brodie was a tireless worker, and nearly every accomplishment touted by the current Board was completed under his tenure.
Since 2015, the Board has struggled with finding its way. It was finally forced to demolish its “spec building” on Beaufort Street after more than a decade of unsuccessfully trying to attract a tenant. The positive news is that the property is now the location for the new Children’s Place facility.
(4) As part of its contract with the City of Aiken, by October 2023, the Aiken Corporation had accumulated more than $10,000 in legal fees related to the lease negotiations. The costs of other involved parties—-city staff, DOE attorneys, SRNL officials, BSRA representatives, etc—is unknown. This information is known due to the Aiken Corporation’s prompt response to a Freedom of Information Act request for invoices submitted by McMillan Pazdan and Smith and Austin and Pethick.
(5) Emails related to the fall 2023 negotiations are available for viewing at this page.
(6) Example of emails related to City staff preparation of the RFQ are available for viewing at this page.
Related Aiken Chronicles articles and editorials, in descending order of publication:
The Rent Free Alternative is a review of the option of the City of Aiken taking over the SRNL/Mixed-Use project, constructing the facility, and then gifting the facility to the state’s Universities.
The Aiken Corporation Buildingwas published in conjunction with this article to illustrate the changes in corporate tenancy in the Aiken Corporation Building.
148,000 For What….reviews the payments and progress made in the Aiken Corporation contract.
Aiken’s Cousin Problem… covers the recommendation of the Aiken Corporation’s Newberry Street, NW property for the SRNL/“Mixed-Use” project; and the history of the acquisition of that property.
The three-part series The Amentum Model… chronicles the history of the development of the Aiken Corporation’s Newberry Street office building and the Aiken Performing Arts Center.
Letter to Battelle is a letter of concern regarding the project process and status to the Battelle Company’s chief liaison for the DOE/SRNL operating contract.
45,000 Square Feet Without a Tenant provides information about the DOE/SRNL disassociation with the project and the details of the DOE/SRNL operating contract.
A Question on Security is an unanswered letter to ACorp contractor McMillan Pazdan and Smith regarding Department of Homeland Security guidelines and rules for threat assessments at federal facilities.
The Future of Warneke Cleaners is an unanswered letter to Aiken Corporation contractor McMillan Pazdan and Smith regarding the zoning status of downtown dry cleaner.
Three Missing Pages covers the Aiken Corporation contract with the City of Aiken and provides extensive footnotes about the project timeline through April 2023.
Who Bought this Property chronicles how an Aiken Corporation loan from the City of Aiken was forgiven in exchange for ACorp purchasing a small property that facilitated the annexation of the new Steeplechase property.
The Agenda Setting Aiken Corporation describes how decisions are often made at Aiken Corporation Board meetings before being presented to City Council.
Project Labscalis Annual Operating Costs covers the total estimated costs for demolition and site prep, construction, and annual maintenance costs for the proposed SRNL building.
I wanted to share an update on the Aiken Corporation board meeting that took place yesterday. The board has agreed to proceed with issuing an RFQ for design services, which will include all preconstruction activities and the preparation of a bid package for a GC. The RFQ should be issued in the next 30 days, and firms will have 30 days to respond.
Earlier this week, there occurred an odd and interesting two days for City of Aiken land use planning, involving a city planning commissioner publicly speaking out against the city’s planning process; followed the next day by the commission’s near-rejection of a high-density housing development north of the City limits.
The 4-3 vote to forward a 338-unit housing development proposal to City Council for its consideration followed a confusing public hearing—confusion over what was promised and demanded by the Commission of the developer, and what was delivered to the people who requested concept plan changes. Specifically, a required traffic study has yet to be submitted to the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), City Fire Marshall, or City Engineer for their review and approval. Adding to the confusion, the developer answered an expressed, though informal, request for reduced housing density by adding more homes to the proposed subdivision.
(Update, Feburary 16, 2024. On January 31, 2024, the City of Aiken issued a Request for a Statement of Qualifications “to solicit input from interested firms to determine if they have the experience and qualifications necessary to assist the City” in replacing the existing 25-year Zoning Ordinance).
By Don Moniak
February 16, 2024
One day after a City of Aiken Planning Commission member was granted, as a private citizen, a half-hour forum before City Council to express his discontent with the city’s land planning system and zoning laws, the Planning Commission (1) nearly rejected a proposed 338-unit, high-density housing development on forested lands currently located outside the city limits and surrounded by distinctly different, long-established neighborhoods.
The development in question has no proposed neighborhood name to date; i.e “Henderson Downs” or “Aiken Village.” It is only referred to as the “May Royal Drive development.”
The development area is situated on four separately owned parcels across ~81 acres, north of the City limits and bounded by the 70-year- old Crosland Park neighborhood, Osbon Drive, May Royal Drive, and U.S. Highway 1 North. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Affected area. The planned subdivision is on the undeveloped lands in the center of the photo (Aiken County Public.Net land database). Click to enlarge.
The First Public Hearing
On November 14, 2023, a Planning Commission public hearing was held to review, discuss, and accept citizen comments for the proposed, yet-to-be-named neighborhood. During that meeting, not a single area resident spoke in favor of the project. More than a dozen spoke in opposition to some or all parts of the plans and raised serious questions about public safety, traffic, stormwater impacts, property values, and general quality of life issues such as noise and light pollution.
Concerns and questions were mostly expressed by long-time county residents and taxpayers who have resided on significantly larger, quiet, generally wooded, properties along Osbon Drive and May Royal Drive. Both areas are outside of the city limits. The development is going to negatively impact their quality of life and property values, although in ways that are too expensive and difficult to measure and monitor.
Traffic and housing density emerged as two of the dominant issues (2) that ultimately led the Commission to table the proposal. However, the development application was tabled strictly due to traffic issues, whereas only a general desire for a reduction in housing density was expressed by commissioners.
In terms of housing density, the consensus was clear that seven homes per acre was inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, which currently ranges from 1-4 homes per acre. That consensus was best summarized by Commissioner Jason Rabun’s statement that “the concept plan is expected to change drastically.” However, no housing density conditions were added to the application that were binding on the developer.
In terms of traffic, there were serious questions about access onto Highway 1 North, entrances along narrow, winding Osbon Drive (Figure 3), and increased traffic volume on May Royal Drive.
The Commission did make one binding decision pertaining to traffic. A motion was approved to table the developer’s application until after a traffic study was submitted; after which the review process would return to the Planning Commission before being forwarded to City Council.
The process for the Motion to Table was riddled with confusion. The official motion within the meeting minutes only stated that the application would be tabled until a traffic study has been completed and has received input from the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. The preceding minutes suggest the intent was for DOT approval (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Draft meeting minutes for the 11/14/23 Public Hearing. The minutes were approved in December 2023. Minutes are the official written record that city attorneys would present to a court in the case of civil litigation. Click to enlarge.
The transcript (3) from the City’s archived live-stream only adds to the confusion. During the discussion, Commissioners expressed a desire for the following variety of review and approval conditions:
“Approved by DOT and reviewed by the city Fire Marshall for their input.”
“Review by the City Engineer.”
“Meet with the Fire Marshall.”
“Proper weigh-in from the City Engineer and the local authority.”
Not a single one of these specific sentiments was enshrined in the official motion, as defined in the Meeting Minutes. However, the last condition, “proper weigh-in from the City Engineer and the local authority,” appears to have preceded the actual motion, but was not listed in the official record. Input was not required from SC DOT and no approvals were necessary from DOT or other parties; only input.
Figure 3. Osbon Drive is a winding, narrow line lacking any center line. The traffic study lists it as having a capacity of 11,000 vehicle trips per day.
The Second Public Hearing.
Neither the desire for lower housing density, nor the demand for a reviewed and/or approved traffic impact study, were satisfied in the developer’s amended application:
The updated concept plan not only failed to reduce the housing density, the developer added five more units to the plan, raising the number of homes from 333 to 338.
No detailed, final traffic impact study was contained in the Commission’s document package. Instead, only a two-page summary of an undisclosed, initial traffic study, from the City’s Charleston-based traffic engineering consultant, was provided. That summary includes the information that DOT approval would be necessary at a later date. (Figure 4)
During the public comment period, a few concerned citizens identified the discrepancies.
In terms of the traffic study, Mayfield Drive resident Jennifer Roberts asked some pointed questions at the 24:40 mark of the meeting:
Ms. Roberts: “At the previous meeting it seemed that it was indicated that the South Carolina DOT traffic study would be done prior to this meeting. I am kind of confused by that. I do understand there’s a process after everyone else’s comments but just want to note that we are very opposed to it.” It was also brought up that they would also need Fire Marshall approval. Has there been (approval)?”
City Planning Director Marya Moultrie: As far as the concept plan, (the Fire Marshall) will do an initial analysis of the roadways. But ultimately when the developer goes to submit a civil plan (the Fire Marshall) will make sure they have enough fire hydrants and their turn radiuses are appropriate. It’s actually typically done at a later date and although they do kind do a cursory look at this they won’t truly dive into it until a little bit later in the process but they do absolutely have to approve the roadways, their turnarounds, their hydrant locations, all that must be approved.
Ms. Roberts: As neighbors will we be notified of any of these approvals?
Ms. Moultrie: That’s all part of the internal review that goes through all the different departments including our Fire Marshall and Public Safety.
After explaining that City Council consideration of the development would be in two weeks, Ms. Moultrie stated further that, the developer does “not have to share their engineer review from the Fire Marshall” during City Council’s review process.
In other words, what was perceived as promises were not delivered, and neighbors will not even be entitled to scrutinize the final review process until well after the development’s concept plan is approved by City Council.
Thus, due to the unclear, and improperly transcribed requirements for the traffic study on November 14th, what was conveyed as a requirement three months ago was not provided prior to Tuesday night’s meeting. The developer was allowed to submit a traffic study that was only summarized by the city’s contract traffic consultant, who somehow concluded that the impacts of thousands of new vehicle trips on nearby roads would be minimal.
The traffic study itself is unavailable, and yet to be formally reviewed or approved by most of the parties identified during the November 14th hearing; unlike some other development proposals—such as Parker’s Kitchen on Whiskey Road—where SC DOT approval was required before the proposal was forwarded to City Council. Instead, only a summary of a study was provided, and that initial, undisclosed study does not appear to have been “detailed.” (Figure 4)
Figure 4. Summary of the Traffic Study. Although the increase in “average daily trips” is three times the existing traffic on May Royal Drive, where most new residents will enter their neighborhood, the conclusion was “minimal impact on the adjacent road system.” Click to enlarge.
In terms of the housing density, Osbon Drive resident Gloria Brown inquired as to how more units could be added after the Commission had expected a “drastic change” to the plan.
Commissioners tended to agree with the sentiment, perhaps best summarized by Chairman Ryan Reynold’s statement that, “it leaves a bad taste when the Commission asks for fewer homes and you come back with more.”
Commissioner Clarkson cast one of three opposing votes. the fourth time since September he has objected to a high-density residential development. Mr. Clarkson also, for at least the third time in 18 months, expressed a desire for more restrictive “overlay districts” to prevent the creation of “more Whiskey Roads.”
Commissioner Charles Matthews also cast an opposing vote, based largely on the failure to look at the big traffic picture along Highway 1 North (Figure 5), citing another large housing development under construction just a mile to the south.
Commissioner Peter Messina was the third opposing vote. He took most exception to the housing density, outlining how hundreds of 0.14 acre lots are not consistent with surrounding 0.25 to 1.5 acre parcels, which violates the guidelines for Planned Residential zoning district.
Figure 5. Columbia Highway/Hwy 1 North during a slow time of day. The white truck is at the junction of May Royal Drive. The 338-unit subdivision will be situated on ~80 acres behind that truck. Area residents raised numerous concerns about their inability to turn left during peak hours; and when Grace kaolinite trucks are busy and during Emerson Plant shift changes. Several people have expressed the need for a traffic signal.
The “Joint” City Council/Planning Commission Work Session
(Update. The audio recording of the 2/12/2024 Work Session is available here.)
Commissioner Messina’s concerns were highly consistent with statements he made to City Council the day before the public hearing. He was the center of attention during City Council’s February 12, 2024, work session; in which the only agenda item was titled, “Planning Commission Update.”
The staff memorandum for the work session stated:
”Councilwoman Gregory requested that Planning Commissioner Pete Messina and other members of the Planning Commission discuss current Planning Commission procedures with City Council to provide an update and feedback.
Commissioner Messina and other members of the Planning Commission will be present to speak to Council this evening. We would like to schedule a joint work session of City Council and Planning Commission at a mutually agreed upon date.”
However, only Mr. Messina was allowed to speak at length before Council. After presenting himself as “a citizen of the town,” (4) and not as a Planning Commissioner, he began by stating:
“My main concern this evening is to talk about proper planning and planning in the right places, not haphazard planning.”
The issues he identified, which strongly reflect sentiments shared by many people across the community; but that are seldom clearly conveyed during the approval process for developments, included:
“There is too much haphazard development and growth,” and it is “too piecemeal.”
“In the town we worked in, we asked for a buildout analysis, look at the potential of the property, then hire a traffic study for the whole town, not piecemeal. Four proposals in a row with 90 (daily vehicle trips) per day does not require a traffic study but in total they should.”
Stormwater management only manages excess stormwater coming off the site, but too many retention ponds releasing at the same time can still cause problems.
Planned residential zones of five acres are too small, and allowable housing densities are often too high on areas that are smaller. There should be zoning for everything from 1/2 to 5 acres.
In terms of impervious surfaces, there are no standards. The only impermeable surface requirement is that 20-25 percent is open space.
There is a lack of information for concept plan reviews. Sometimes facades are not available to council; for example the Silver bluff shopping center. “Too many plans are on an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper that require a magnifying glass.”
If something is allowed that does not make sense, then the zoning would change; i.e change a zoning code so a car wash would be zoned out.
“Giving us something nice” leads to other nice buildings. If you start with a car wash the next-door development is not going to be nice. It is not something to be proud of.
The Comprehensive Plan covers growth from 30K to 50K. “You have to know how large a town you want to be. Ask the question: do we need another Citizens Park, another Odell Weeks,” to accomodate growth?
The county donut holes are a problem throughout the city.
Mr. Messina was allowed 30 minutes to speak as a private citizen, more than ten times longer than other private citizens are allowed to speak during regular Council meetings on nonagenda issues; six times longer than citizens are allowed to speak during public hearings.
During his speech to Council, the other six Planning Commissioner’s watched and listened.
After Mr. Messina was finished, Commissioner Clayton Clarkson walked to the podium and stated that, “We are 35 minutes into a meeting and only one commissioner has spoken.”(4)
Other Council members expressed discomfort with the way the work session was handled. Councilwoman Kay Brohl, who has also served on the Planning Commission, asked whether these issues had been discussed among the Commission. Councilman Ed Woltz, who once chaired the Commission, stated that it was the first work session he had attended in which Council had no materials to prepare for the meeting (6).
Two weeks ago, on January 31, 2024, the City of Aiken issued a Request for a Statement of Qualifications “to solicit input from interested firms to determine if they have the experience and qualifications necessary to assist the City” in crafting a new Zoning Ordinance. The RFQ was issued because the City is “considering a near-future Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance to replace the current 25-year-old City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance.
|City Council has the option of ordering non-decisional Public Hearings on any significant issue (7). Council could request public hearings—one for each section of town—during which all affected citizens, both city and county residents, could raise concerns and ask questions about the land planning process, the existing zoning ordinance, and any future zoning ordinance—just as Council allowed one private citizen thirty minutes to do so. If such hearings were held, some Planning Commissioners like Peter Messina would find that there is widespread support for their advocacy of stricter growth standards.
Figure 6. Citizen concerns being raised during most recent City of Aiken Planning Commission meeting. From left to right: Commissioners Peter Messina, Charles Matthews, Steve Simmons, Chairman Ryan Reynolds, Planning Director Marya Moultrie, Vice-Chairman Jason Rabun, and Commissioners Sam Erb and Clayton Clarkson.
Footnotes
(1) The Planning Commission is an appointed body that makes recommendations to City Council; which is responsible for approving ordinances allowing for developments to occur. It does, however, establish its own by-laws.
(2) Stormwater was another serious concern, and one facing further scrutiny.
The developer agreed to mitigate light, noise, and aesthetic impacts by constructing a fence around the entire subdivision, and leave a 25-foot wooded buffer between the fence and neighboring properties.
(3) The transcript from the archived live-stream, edited for clarity (double wording and pauses removed), and focused only on the traffic impact study requirements, is as follows:
At 1:07:30
Commission Chairman: The (first) motion was to accept the application with the listed recommendations. My recommendation is to amend the motion, you would have to amend the motion to:
Commissioner: Yes, to require that the traffic impact study come back before us with the required changes that are going to be implemented based on the egress and ingress out of the development plus the buffer changes.”
Chair: Okay just just for clarity did you want to have the traffic study completed prior to going to city council?
Commissioner: That’s what I was asking.
Chair: So Commissioner Clarkson is amending his motion to include Commissioner Rabun’s condition that to include, so we can get it correct, that traffic study be submitted and approved by DOT and reviewed by the city Fire Marshall for their their input. (emphasis added)
(Commissioners agree)
At 1:10:49:
Chair: I think to make it cleaner (and not send to City Council), you table the applications and wait for the proper traffic study with review from the city engineer and then that allows them to come back without scrapping their application, is that correct? So with that knowledge now you can make another amendment?
Commissioner: I would add to my motion which is saying that we add the conditions that we have all talked about but just move to table it to allow them time to do the traffic study to meet with the fire marshal to make sure that doesn’t change this development drastically.
Chair: The motion was originally to accept this for or approve it or recommend for city council for approval based on the conditions, Commissioner Clarkson has amended. his motion now to table both these applications until further traffic study, with proper weigh-in from the city engineer and the local Authority so we can have a better understanding of the traffic situation because that appears to be one of the biggest issues in this area that we all agree upon. With that being said, do I have a Second to table?
The motion then passed.
(4) Planning Commissioner Peter Messina was the Town Engineer and Planner for Bernard Township, New Jersey for more than three decades. The Township is located 40 miles and 55 minutes west of Manhattan, New York.
According the U.S. Census Bureau, the township has a current population of nearly 28,000; a medium household income of $174,072; a poverty rate of 3.2 percent; a combined white and Asian-American population of 93 percent; and a median housing value of $744,000.
(5) Mr. Clarkson also disputed an assertion made by Councilwoman Gregory’s at the onset of the meeting, that the planning department had not properly notified other commissioners of the meeting.
(6) The situation also contrasted sharply with the January 22, 2024, Council Meeting. During that meeting, a Recreation Commission member rose during the “public comments on nonagenda items” portion of the meeting to relay that Commission’s vote to recommend a pause in the Smith-Hazel City Park redevelopment effort until there was a public hearing on what was actually being proposed. He was abruptly interrupted and cut off after speaking past the allotted three minutes.
(7) Sec. 2-69 of City Code allows for “Hearings by special committees. The city council may appoint a special committee to assist in or hold a public hearing for the council at any time upon any matter pending before it. Minutes or reports of hearings held by special committees shall be filed with the city clerk as public records.”
Instead of this option, “work sessions,” which are not defined in City Code nor described in the City’s outdated Handbook for Effective Boards, Commissions, and Committees, are routinely held; during which citizens are spectators who are denied input.
