Category Archives: March 2023

Development Issues, March 2023, Nature News

The Sale of Rose Trace: A Case of Protection or Profit?

8 Comments

By Beth Eberhard and Winona Specht
March 31, 2023

Protecting the Places You Love. This is the motto of the Aiken Land Conservancy. With the pending sale of Rose Trace, they may need to change it to Profiting From the Places You Love.

About Rose Trace

Rose Trace, a 132-acre wooded property located between Richardson’s Lake Road and Southwood subdivision, was donated to the Aiken Land Conservancy (ALC) in  December of 2014 by Paul and Phyllis Rosen.

In the Winter 2015 ACL newsletter, Phyllis Rosen said of their donation of Rose Trace to Aiken Land Conservancy, “I feel as if we’ve saved a life. Our intention is to preserve these wonderful woods and protect them for the future.” 

Trail in Rose Trace

Above: The trails in Rose Trace are enjoyed daily by local walkers, who keep the trails cleared of fallen limbs and other woody debris.
Below: Spring comes to life at Rosen Trace in ferns, fungi, irises, and a small stream with a simple board for crossing. Last summer, this box turtle was seen laying a clutch of eggs only moments before this photo was taken.

The article goes on to say, “… it gives them comfort to know that Rose Trace is in the hands of an organization that shares their conservation values and will take care of the property as they would. “ 

“Properties like Rose Trace are a big part of what makes Aiken so special,” said Phyllis. ”We wanted to do our part to preserve the beauty, character and open space that drew us here in the first place.”

ALC President Larry Comegys wrote in the same 2015 newsletter of Rose Trace, “…we are honored to take over the reins of this beautiful property.  Donating land with conservation value is one of the finest gifts that a person can leave for future generations…This is an important and exciting addition to our properties that protects valuable open space adjoining urbanized Aiken.”

The Pending Sale of Rose Trace

Yet, Larry Comegys recently sent a letter to ALC supporters declaring, “It was intended that ALC would sell the property and use the funds to support our operational needs, particularly to add full-time conservation staff to our team.” (1) Days later, he amended this statement to read, “It was intended that ALC would later sell the property, using the proceeds to help build the endowment needed to fulfill our legal commitments to regularly, in perpetuity, monitor the properties we protect through conservation easement.”

Rose Trace is currently listed as a sale pending through Coldwell Banker Realty with a price tag of $700,000.  The 132.02 acre land was listed as ALC’s top asset in in their 2021 Form 990 — valued at $1,320,000. (2)

This sale would have gone down quietly except for a chance encounter that Dr. Winona Specht had with a neighbor who told her of ALC’s plan to sell Rose Trace.  Specht, who holds a doctorate in Ecology, walks these woods at least once a day and knows the value of this large contiguous plot of land for its diversity of plant and animal life, having regularly seen deer, fox, and owls among other wild residents of this area that is described by Comegys as a “mini Hitchcock Woods.”  Specht contacted another woods-walker, Beth Eberhard, who as an environmental educator also knew the value of the diverse ecosystems contained within Rose Trace.  

Sights on a spring walk at Rose Trace: Bee pollinating some fragrant horse sugar blossoms; a native Hawthorne tree in bloom; longleaf pine catkins forming a heart. (Photos courtesy of Beth Eberhard)

Starting on March 12, Beth Eberhard and Winona Specht began trying to contact ALC by email, phone, and even visiting their downtown office, but received no response.  Ten days later they began posting about the sale on NextDoor and Facebook.   Their posts locally went viral. To date the posts have been viewed more than 12,000 times and hundreds of people have commented on the posts; with most comments expressing outrage and disappointment about the sale. 

Suddenly, Comegys began returning calls, sent out letters to ALC supporters, and was interviewed by the Aiken Standard; which ran a front-page article on March 25 that only provided ALC’s perspective and dismissed disagreement as “social media.” According to the Aiken Standard, “he declined to disclose the sale price;” but that sale price will be a matter of public record on the county land data base within a month or two of the sale.

Aiken Land Conservancy’s Reasons for the Sale

In an initial letter, Comegys said, “Finally, selling the property removes a significant liability concern for ALC due to the high level of unauthorized trespass that occurs on the property.”  

Without any No Trespassing signs posted on the land, it is hard to fathom how “unauthorized trespass” could occur.  

According to David Brandner, who owns the majority of a pond that is partly within Rose Trace boundaries, he removed a tree on ALC property that was blocking a spillway to the dam and threatening the stability of the dam. This was the action of a responsible land owner who was spending his own time and resources to fix a problem on adjoining land that could have led to increased erosion and ultimate failure of a dam that was largely on his property.  Is this an example of a “high level of unauthorized trespass”?  

In 2021, Beth Eberhard was told by attorney Jim Cunningham, one of the ALC trustees at the time, that pedestrians could walk the trails.  Since that time, she has seen no evidence of anyone using the woods in a manner that would be a liability, cause damage, or reduce the value of the property.

In phone conversations with both Winona Specht and Beth Eberhard on March 23-24, 2023 Larry Comegys asserted that liability and the costs of maintaining the property were among the reasons for the sale.  ALC owned land abutting Three Runs Plantation that is used by equestrians, although this did not seem to be an issue of liability for the organization (which did sell the property to the TRP HOA in 2021, where it is adjoins existing HOA common space.) In many years of walking the trails in Rose Trace, neither Eberhard nor Specht have seen any evidence of maintenance work, except for putting up several small boundary signs along the edge of the property.

Mr. Comegys declined to make Board Meeting minutes available upon request, even though Section 33-31-1602 of the South Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act allows members of nonprofits to view organizational records, within certain guidelines. (3)

Rather than putting a conservation easement on the property, ALC decided to put deed restrictions allowing the property to be sold off in 15 acre or greater lots.  According to David Brandner, whose property abuts Rose Trace, the developer of Kemper Downs subdivision made an offer of $800,000 for Rose Trace, which they declined in favor of a buyer from Atlanta who wants to build and use it as equestrian property.  

In a letter to supporters on March 23, Comegys wrote, “In selling the property we are mindful of the need to protect it from the level of development that is permitted in the city under the current zoning. Therefore, it is being sold with significant restrictions on any future development and is not being sold to a developer. Those restrictions, combined with the challenging topography of the property and its limited access, constrain its future use.”

While it is commendable that ALC didn’t sell to a developer, there is apparently nothing in place that would stop the prospective buyer from turning around and selling off as many 15-acre lots as he could. During a phone call to Eberhard, Comegys stated that the buyer would probably develop two or three equestrian properties on the land.  Although Comegys said, “Habitat will not be lost,” it is hard to fathom how a house, barn, paddock, and meadow for two or three properties would not result in significant habitat loss; and there are no restrictions on development within any fifteen acre or larger parcels.

The Topography Issue. 

Comegys also wrote that the “challenging topography” Could limit this land’s use. The topographical map of Rose Trace, which is available through the Aiken County property database, shows that about 45 acres of Rose Trace is on fairly level terrain, easy to develop topography wise. Anyone can see that the topography of Rose Trace is not much different than in surrounding developed areas such as Huntcliff and Coachman Drive. 

Parts of Rose Trace are hilly with several streams running through the valleys, but other areas with similar landforms, such as Kalmia Hills, have been heavily developed. As a point of fact, the City of Aiken recently approved building a 330-unit apartment complex on 30 acres of country near USC-Aiken, along Gregg Highway, with some challenging topography. It can be done.

If the Aiken Land Conservancy wanted to protect this land from future buyers, the question must be asked as to why the deed restrictions allow it to be subdivided into 15-acre lots.  It is unknown if ACL has placed any other deed restrictions on Rose Trace.

Comegys’ claim of limited access to the property seems valid at this time, as the only access to the property is along Huntcliff Trace and from the private Hackamore Drive. However, Don Moniak remarked about these publicly accessible maps that, “anyone can see there are access alternatives other than the Huntcliff Trace road for an imaginative and well capitalized developer.” 

The cost to gain access to the property would be high. However, with escalating land prices and the fact that this is the only remaining tract of privately-owned land of its size within Aiken City limits, any future developer would stand to make a hefty profit.’

The ALC Funding Issue

In his interview with the Aiken Standard, Larry Comegys claimed that the ALC is “underfunded.” In response to this, Don Moniak made a comment on our initial Aiken Chronicles letter to the editor that: 

“His [Larry Comegys’] latest claim to the Aiken Standard that his organization is ‘underfunded’ is an ill-advised and lame excuse. According to its Calendar year 2021 tax filing, this charitable organization had revenues of more than $200K and assets totaling $8.0 million that included an investment and security account with a $3.2 million balance.”

Mr. Moniak forwarded his comments to Mr. Comegys, who has yet to respond.

Community Sentiment

Community backlash to the pending sale has been strong. On NextDoor, comments included the following:

“The hypocrisy of their statement! They are going to develop land (destroy it) in order to do their conservation work?”

“Sounds like the Aiken Land Conservatory should be re-named Aiken Land Sell Outs to the highest bidder”  

 “I just want to say that I don’t feel this recent move will provide a lot of confidence that this Aiken Land Conservancy is prepared today to serve the desires of many who want to leave a land gift that will be appreciated for generations like Hitchcock Woods.”

The Right to Sell or the Right Thing to Do?

The Rosens donated Rose Trace (4) to the ALC as an unrestricted gift. The Aiken Land Conservancy certainly has the right to sell the property, as several commenters on social media have pointed out. However, to sell it with deed restrictions allowing it to be developed into 15-acre lots doesn’t seem to be the right and environmentally responsible thing to do for an organization built on the idea of land conservation.

Through the years, the Aiken Land Conservancy has raised millions of dollars, as stated in their mission statement, “to preserve Aiken’s unique character and natural and historic resources for present and future generations through advocacy and land protection.”  The ALC has done important work that no other local entity is doing.  

Yet in the sale of Rose Trace, they may undo the public’s trust in their land conservancy work. Protecting or profiting: the answer will only be made as clear as their transparency in this deal.

Rose Trace trail

Left: Entrance to Rose Trace. Right: Hanging from a branch is a piece of blue surveyors tape that appeared last week, marking the boundaries of Rose Trace. (Photos courtesy of Winona Specht)


_____________________

Footnotes


(1)

(2) Aiken Land Conservancy’s 2021 Form 990. See page 38.

Aiken-land-conservancy-2021Download

Financial information on the Aiken Land Conservancy can be found at https://search.scsos.com/charities.

Or at the Propublica Nonprofit Explorer page.

(3) The pertinent sections of SC non profit law governing inspection of records follows;

SECTION 33-31-1601. Corporate records.

(a) A corporation shall keep as permanent records minutes of all meetings of its members and board of directors, a record of all actions taken by the members or directors without a meeting, and a record of all actions taken by committees of the board of directors as authorized by Section 33-31-825(d).

(b) A corporation shall maintain appropriate accounting records.

(c) A corporation or its agent shall maintain a record of its members in a form that permits preparation of a list of the name and address of all members, in alphabetical order by class, showing the number of votes each member is entitled to cast.

(d) A corporation shall maintain its records in written form or in another form capable of conversion into written form within a reasonable time.

(e) A corporation shall keep a copy of the following records at its principal office:

(1) its articles or restated articles of incorporation and all amendments to them currently in effect;

(2) its bylaws or restated bylaws and all amendments to them currently in effect;

(3) resolutions adopted by its board of directors relating to the characteristics, qualifications, rights, limitations, and obligations of members or any class or category of members;

(4) the minutes of all meetings of members and records of all actions approved by the members for the past three years;

(5) all written communications to members generally within the past three years, including the financial statements furnished for the past three years under Section 33-31-1620;

(6) a list of the names and business or home addresses of its current directors and officers; and

(7) its most recent report of each type required to be filed by it with the Secretary of State under this chapter.

HISTORY: 1994 Act No. 384, Section 1.

SECTION 33-31-1602. Inspection of records by members.

(a) Subject to subsection (e) and Section 33-31-1603(c), a member is entitled to inspect and copy, at a reasonable time and location specified by the corporation, any of the records of the corporation described in Section 33-31-1601(e) if the member gives the corporation written notice or a written demand at least five business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy.

(b) Subject to subsection (e), a member is entitled to inspect and copy, at a reasonable time and reasonable location specified by the corporation, any of the following records of the corporation if the member meets the requirements of subsection (c) and gives the corporation written notice at least five business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy:

(1) excerpts from any records required to be maintained under Section 33-31-1601(a), to the extent not subject to inspection under Section 33-31-1602(a);

(2) accounting records of the corporation; and

(3) subject to Section 33-31-1605, the membership list.

(c) A member may inspect and copy the records identified in subsection (b) only if:

(1) the member’s demand is made in good faith and for a proper purpose;

(2) the member describes with reasonable particularity the purpose and the records the member desires to inspect; and

(3) the records are directly connected with this purpose.

(d) This section does not affect:

(1) the right of a member to inspect records under Section 33-31-720 or, if the member is in litigation with the corporation, to the same extent as any other litigant; or

(2) the power of a court, independently of this chapter, to compel the production of corporate records for examination.

(e) The articles or bylaws of a religious corporation may limit or abolish the right of a member under this section to inspect and copy any corporate record.

HISTORY: 1994 Act No. 384, Section 1.

SECTION 33-31-1603. Scope of inspection rights.

(a) A member’s agent or attorney has the same inspection and copying rights as the member the agent or attorney represents.

(b) The right to copy records under Section 33-31-1602 includes, if reasonable, the right to receive copies made by photographic, xerographic, or other means.

(c) The corporation may impose a reasonable charge, covering the costs of labor and material, for copies of any documents provided to the member. The charge may not exceed the estimated cost of production or reproduction of the records.

(d) The corporation may comply with a member’s demand to inspect the record of members under Section 33-31-1602(b)(3) by providing the member with a list of its members that was complied no earlier than the date of the member’s demand.

HISTORY: 1994 Act No. 384, Section 1.

SECTION 33-31-1604. Court-ordered inspection.

(a) If a corporation does not allow a member who complies with Section 33-31-1602(a) to inspect and copy any records required by that subsection to be available for inspection, the circuit court in the county where the corporation’s principal office in this State, or, if none in this State, its registered office, is located may summarily order inspection and copying of the records demanded at the corporation’s expense upon application of the member.

(b) If a corporation does not within a reasonable time allow a member to inspect and copy any other record, the member who complies with Section 33-31-1602(b) and (c) may apply to the circuit court in the county where the corporation’s principal office in this State, or if none in this State, its registered office, is located for an order to permit inspection and copying of the records demanded. The court shall dispose of an application under this subsection on an expedited basis.

(c) If the court orders inspection and copying of the records demanded, it also shall order the corporation to pay the member’s costs, including reasonable counsel fees, incurred to obtain the order unless the corporation proves that it refused inspection in good faith because it had a reasonable basis for doubt about the right of the member to inspect the records demanded.

(d) If the court orders inspection and copying of the records demanded, it may impose reasonable restrictions on the use or distribution of the records by the demanding member.

HISTORY: 1994 Act No. 384, Section 1.

(4) Rose Trace is composed of two parcels

a. A 15.72 acre parcel fronting Huntcliff Trace on the south end of the property.

b. A 116.3 acre parcel north of the smaller parcel.

The larger parcel is bordered on the north by an undeveloped 27 acre property owned by “Metro Homesites”, easily accessible from Kemper Downs; and a 47-acre parcel. Add the 10 acres of undeveloped land owned by Kemper Downs Homeowner Association, and the total of private, contiguous, large-acreage parcels amounts to an island of 209 acres of undeveloped land surrounded by well developed residential areas.

Correction: ALC owned property in Three Runs Plantation, but sold it to the Home Owners Association in 2021, with restrictive covenants.

Letters, March 2023, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab, Plutonium Settlement, Project Pascalis 2022, Savannah River Site

Pascalis or SRS Downtown: Following a Snake Through Brush

10 Comments

by Dr. Rose O Hayes
March 27, 2023

I am concerned about the proposed Savannah River Site (SRS) lab building, and additional parking facility, in downtown Aiken.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) SRS operations already have a large presence downtown. The old Post Office building at Park and Laurens is occupied by the main DOE/SRS contractor (Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, or SRNS). Another main DOE/SRS contractor, a spin off from AECOM called Amentum, is located on the Newberry Street mall. These are huge international firms. Such companies do not shrink, they expand.

The U.S. government’s proposal to locate a “nuclear lab/training center/administrative building” and parking garage in the heart of our small downtown is emblematic of that growth pattern. With that addition, federal government contractors also become the largest inextricably related business complex in our small downtown. These facilities, their architecture, and the nature of their business are a poor match with the unique southern belle character and look so popular with and enjoyed by Aiken residents and thousands of visitors each year. The growing presence of federal-government-business buildings in the midst of our small privately owned businesses harkens a significant change in the future profile and activities along Laurens Street and its crossing avenues, Park and Richland.

In addition, adding to the downtown federal worker and federal contract worker population will increase street traffic and require enlarged roadways for ingress and egress, supplementary traffic signals, etc. Whiskey Road is almost at maximum capacity now and years of planning have not resolved the traffic flow problem there. It will get decidedly worse if an SRS lab/training/admin center is added to the mix. Expanded infrastructures will also be required such as water and sewage systems. These modifications will have to be paid for by the taxpayers who are already footing the bill for the failed Pascalis Project.

Questions also remain about the tax and private interest dollars that have already been sunk into the failed Pascalis project. In order to have a clear understanding of the city’s $9.6 million debt for that cancelled plan, and why it was necessary, an audit should be conducted by an outside firm. Trying to follow the twists and turns the Pascalis planning took is like trying to chase a snake through brush. An audit would be in keeping with the mayor’s commitment to transparency and helpful in future planning as “lessons learned”.

Aikenites should be more concerned about the fact that the old leaking tanks and cleanup work on the edge of town at SRS are still not cleaned up, under the auspice of the major contractors, SRNS and Amentum. SRS remains a Superfund site on the PSL list (government priorities list ). The sites on the PSL list are areas contaminated with substances hazardous to the public. In addition, because of all the nuclear waste waiting to be cleaned up at SRS, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environment Control (SCDHEC) designated it as the major health and environment hazard in the state. Unfortunately, the former federal focus and commitment to clean up SRS has waned in favor of new processing campaigns involving imported foreign and domestic radioactive materials that produce more nuclear waste that has no place to go. Aiken needs the government/SRS to continue decontaminating the Superfund site, not expanding nuclear interests in the heart of our city.

The recent plutonium settlement monies, millions of which will be those tax payer dollars associated with the proposed SRS downtown lab, are state funds and must go to state political bodies (cities, towns, universities, counties, school districts, etc.) and not to any contractors. Since that money was a settlement due to the U.S. government’s failure to remove plutonium and other radioactive materials from SRS on a committed schedule (decades overdue), it should be repurposed to the cleanup mission. The critical need to continue the cleanup mission is highlighted by the recently released SRS plan indicating requirements to remediate cesium 137 detected in the site’s ponds, canal systems, creek banks and fish. The creek, Lower Three Runs, leads into the Savannah River. In humans, cesium 137 can cause skin burns, tumors and death.

And lastly, why is it necessary “to grow” Aiken’s downtown? It’s current state, popularity, and place for the community to enjoy is a model for success when compared to other small cities. Bringing in corporate-sized businesses will only detract from the charm that increasingly attracts people who come to enjoy and participate in it. Corporate office buildings will inevitably overshadow that alluring charm. Big business growth should occur on the edges of the town where space and parking is not an issue.

Universities with significant internship programs provide students with hands-on training at facilities where they are being trained to work. That suggests that the most advantageous location for the new SRS lab would should be the SRS site.

It’s time for Aikenites to decide if and how they want our downtown to grow, and speak out. Someone once said, “Things are run by those who show up.” A lot of people are saying they don’t speak out or show up because the officials no longer listen. Well, if enough of us show up and/or speak out often enough, we will be heard. Will Rogers said, “You get the government you deserve.” And, there are always the voting polls.

Dr. Rose O. Hayes, former member of the SRS CAB and chair of the Nuclear Materials Committee

March 2023, Nature News

The Carolina Wren

Leave a comment
South Carolina’s little big bird

By Burt Glover

I’m keeping a close eye on the Carolina wrens this year. If you’re smart, you will do the same. It’s nesting season, and the pair in my yard have gone into overdrive. I watch as the male hops around the yard, collecting small sticks, pine straw, leaves and cypress branchlets. With his beak full, he flies to the porch railing, chattering all the while, and pauses. He bobs up-and-down for a short time, looking one way, and then the other. I know what he is thinking. “Which nest do I build?”

It is the male’s responsibility to build the basic nests — and I do mean “nests.” The male Carolina wren will build upward of 6 to 12 nests during this time, in various places. Those various places might include birdhouses, woodpecker holes in trees, vine thickets, flower pots, inside mailboxes, shoes, coat pockets, tin cans, under the hood of a car, bags, trash piles…. The male will build nests just about anywhere.

It is up to the female to choose the home of her liking and finish it off, adding a soft interior of fine grass, hair and/or moss. Currently, “my” male wren has two nests started in the eaves on either side of my front porch, and one more in a hollow beneath the gutter on my back porch — and who knows where else? I’ll have to watch closely to see that he doesn’t build in an inappropriate place. It wouldn’t do to be driving around town with a family of wrens underneath my hood.

Carolina wren nestlings nestled in flower pot.

All wrens are grouped into the family Troglodytidae– which is Latin for “cave dweller.” If you’ve ever seen a Carolina wren nest, you might understand this designation. Their nests are built into a dome-like structure — a cave with a small side entrance. Often, there will be a woven extension to the entrance; a type of porch landing ramp. Examine the nest, itself, and you may find string, snake skins, feathers, plastic trash and other items woven into the structure. Wrens may raise up to three broods per year. In many cases, the male is left tending the fledglings from the nest out in the yard, while the female is sitting on the next clutch of eggs.    

One native American tribe had a name for this jaunty, cinnamon-colored bird– the English transcribed it to a word that was about 38 letters long. The translation of the name was “little bird with a big voice.” The Carolina wren does have just about the loudest song of any bird around. The books all tell you to listen out for their “tea kettle, tea kettle” song for identification. The fact is that they can sing an average of 32 different phrase patterns. I’ve never heard the “Tea kettle” song around here. Most often, I hear a song more like “Jibity, Jibity, Jibity.” 

A male Carolina wren will belt out his song year-round, aggressively defending his territory. Female wrens have the ability to sing, as well. Many times, I will hear her give a rattling-type call immediately after he has let loose with one of his territorial songs. The reason for this, I’ve always heard, is that she looks so much like him that she is in danger of being mistaken for an intruding rival. She gives her rattling call as if to say, “Don’t attack me! I’m your mate!!”

The Carolina wren is the South Carolina state bird– though it wasn’t always so. In 1930, following deliberations between the mourning dove and the Carolina wren, the South Carolina Federated Women’s Clubs, (led by Miss Claudia Phelps of Aiken), chose the Carolina wren as the state bird. Throughout the 1930s, South Carolinians recognized the Carolina wren as the state bird, even as this was not yet an official designation.. In 1939, when when it came to make it official, the SC legislature broke with the practice among other states to honor the selection of women’s clubs and,  instead, chose the mockingbird. So South Carolina’s first official state bird was the mockingbird.

It wasn’t until 1948, and for reasons unknown, that the earlier ruling was rescinded and the Carolina wren officially restored to its place as the state bird. The occasion was used to launch political barbs, (see clipping below) and was also accompanied for a while by a certain prickliness among some South Carolinians over the usurpation of the mockingbird.

Clipping from page two of the April 2, 1948 edition of the Aiken Standard and Review

As for insect control, Carolina wrens are relentless. There is no nook or cranny on my house or in my yard that they have not explored. I hear a scratching or knocking at my windows… I open the curtains… and there will be a wren clinging to the woodwork, snatching up a spider egg sac. They hop around, searching holes underneath stumps, inside garages and squirrel’s nests, underneath tree bark; every square inch. They particularly love spiders, but they also take a heavy toll on crickets, stink bugs, grasshoppers, ticks, roaches, caterpillars, beetles, bees, moths and many other insects. Occasionally, they will partake of the seeds/berries of smilax, poison ivy, sweetgum, Virginia creeper, and others. 

Between their loud song, their clutters of nests, and their sheer busyness, the resourceful little Wren makes for a big presence in a yard. The presence only grows with the progression of spring, with so many mouths to feed. I’ve read that it takes many hundreds of insects per day to feed just one nest of wrens, which is yet one more reason to appreciate our state bird — and to lay off the pesticides! I’m happy to accommodate as many nests as the wrens want to build on my porch and eave — as long as they stay out of my car engine. 

___________________

Contributor Burt Glover became an accidental naturalist during his earliest childhood days exploring the dirt roads, backyards, polo field and barns of the Magnolia-Knox-Mead neighborhood of 1950s Aiken. Birds are his first love, and he can identify an impressive range by song alone. He asserts that he is an observer, not an expert, on the topics of his writings, which range from birds, box turtles, frogs and foraging, to wasps, weeds, weather and beyond

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

Project Labscalis* Annual Operating Costs

20 Comments

$271,250 of “Indefinite” Local Annual Subsidies for Federal Contractor

by Don Moniak
March 28, 2023

According to a recently obtained “Savannah River Litigation Settlement Fund Request Form,” the City of Aiken’s estimated annual operating costs for the proposed Savannah River National Laboratory’s (SRNL) “Workforce Development” office complex in downtown Aiken is at least $271,250.00; or $2.71 million over the first ten years. This annual subsidy for the lab facility, which is expected to require allocations of hospitality tax revenues, was omitted by city officials during the announcement of the project and during subsequent public discussions. 

The request form contains the $20 million dollar request to South Carolina’s Executive Budget Office for “SRS/National Laboratory Off-Site Infrastructure.” The money was allocated to any public body in Aiken County by the General Assembly for the purpose of such a facility, but still requires formal project approval through the budget office and the legislative Joint Bond Review Committee (JBRC). 

Even though consultants and city council members have stated the decision is “not a done deal,” the funding request confirms the City’s intent to build a 45,000 square foot office complex for SRNL on a half-acre of property currently under the control of the nearly defunct Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC).

According to SRNL director Dr. Vahid Majidi, the downtown lab office complex is intended to house unspecified computational work, nonproliferation (1) training programs, and human resources: 

“SRNL employees will perform some of our computational modeling and simulation. We’ll  have a team of employees working with the university to increase our engagement with faculty postdoctoral and graduate students interns and minority serving institution programs. Some of our employees will work on non-proliferation training programs while other will work on Workforce Development and HR functions moreover as a collaboration Hub.” (2)

As reported in There Must Be a Joke in There Somewhere, Dr. Majidi stressed that the downtown facility will not involve “chemical hoods or hazardous materials,” but did not elaborate on the depth of often-classified and secretive non-proliferation work that will occur at the facility. 

The Justification 

According to the “Project Description and Justification,” the downtown location was chosen “because of the walking distance proximity to cultural amenities, dining, retail stores, and lodging.”  The facility will be a “shared event/exhibition space and office space” where employees of SRNL’s contractor Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA) will work on “critical projects for SRNL as part of the university consortium.” (3)

A justification for the facility not previously disclosed is “hosting and training non-U.S. citizens, which is currently difficult to do within the highly-secured areas at the Savannah River Site.”

This justification is contradicted by the SRNL lease at the the Advanced Research Center (ARC) off-site facility in Aiken County’s  422-acre Caroll H. Warner Savannah River Research Campus.  SRNL is also tasked by DOE with operating a second off-site facility, the 60,000 square foot Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative at USC-Aiken that is presently under construction and is expected to cost $50 million.

The project description and justification for the SRNL project.

Costs 

The total $20 million in upfront project costs do not include land acquisition, the $7.0 million estimated cost of a parking garage for the facility, or the $250,000 “predevelopment” contract with the Aiken Corporation that is part planning, part marketing.(4) There is, however, $2.7 million in “unknowns” in the “contingency” column. The remainder of the $17.3 million in known estimated costs are: 

  • $2.0 million for architectural and engineering professional services
  • $1.5 million for site development, for which only “demolition” is the description.
  • $13.8 million for new construction of the 45,000 square foot, T-shaped, three-story facility 

The annual operating costs, all of which are described as recurring “indefinitely,” are broken down into three categories: 

  • Utilities: $157,000, at a cost of $3.50 per square foot. 
  • Maintenance and Repairs: $33,750, at a cost of $0.75 per square foot
  • Salaries, Benefits, Payroll Taxes: $80,000 for “maintenance and facility management staff”

A note on the annual operating costs states: 

“SRNL (BSRA) has agreed to negotiate an operating agreement under which the tenant will be responsible for proportional utility, maintenance, tax and insurance obligations for the portion of the facility exclusively occupied by the tenant. The remaining proportional expense for the remaining shared public areas of the facility will be the responsibility of the City of Aiken funded by a variety of existing revenue streams to include hospitality taxes.” 

The Cost estimates for the downtown lab office complex project.



Left out of the request form is the fact that the City of Aiken intends to maintain “control” of the facility by leasing it to its long time private partner, the quasi-governmental, not for profit Aiken Corporation. 

On March 13, 2023, four members of Aiken City Council approved a no-bid, $250,000 contract (4) with the Aiken Corporation to pay the architectural firm of McMillan Pazden and Smith (MPS) to conduct “pre-development” work on the project ranging from “public engagement,” “stakeholder interviews,” site evaluation including its “historical nature,” learning the city’s zoning laws and comprehensive plan, and “assisting the planning team in developing guiding principles for the overall form and massing of any proposed buildings as well as their impact on the pedestrian experience.” The contract also included backdating prior commitments between the Aiken Corporation and MPS. (5)

Another part of the contract requires the Aiken Corporation to hire a lawyer “ to provide legal services” including “drafting a lease between Developer and Third Parties.”

Three Council members properly recused themselves from the vote to comply with state ethics laws: 

  • Councilwomen Gail Diggs and Lessie Price, who are voting members of the Aiken Corporation; but who, on March 27th, expressed their intention to resign from the Aiken Corporation Board of Directors.
  • Mayor Rick Osbon, an owner of Osbon Cleaners whose only downtown and North Aiken competitor is Warneke Cleaners, whose existing location will be demolished and relocated. 

Status of the Funding Request. 

The $20 million request was sent to Aiken County Administrator Clay Killian prior to January 27, 2023.  Mr. Killian did not sign and approve the request, and forward it to the state’s Executive Budget Office, until March 14, 2023–too late for submission for the Joint Bond Review Committee’s (JBRC) March 22, 2023 meeting agenda. The $20 million line item remains unallocated until the request is approved by the JBRC.

The JBRC approved  $27.1 million of plutonium funds for three projects in January 2023, and were asked to reconsider one request. No reply has been forthcoming.

From JBRC March 22, 2023 Agenda. The $20.5 million awaiting disbursement are the $20 million for the SRNL offsite facility, and the Children’s Place facility off Beaufort Avenue.

  • * Editor’s Note: Project “Labscalis” is a hybrid term used to refer to the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) Workforce Development Center being proposed on properties obtained by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) as the core area for the demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis. Thus, Labscalis.
    (May 18, 2023.)

    Footnotes: 

(1) A key element of SRNL’s mission is nuclear nonproliferation, an intelligence program and very broad field that ranges from treaty verification to detecting and recovering lost or stolen nuclear materials. SRNL describes the program area as, “supporting the intelligence needs of the United States.  SRNL employs its unique expertise in nuclear technologies, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) signatures, and regional security analysis to examine foreign programs in support of DOE, the Intelligence community, and other U.S. government organizations.  As part of the Interagency Treaty Process, SRNL provides support to NNSA and other government organizations for their participation in the process that develops U.S. positions on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, as well as other agreements required for nuclear trade with other countries.” 

This work is primarily under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), with some contract work with other federal agencies. The NNSA is also responsible for producing nuclear weapons for deployment by the Department of Defense; and insuring the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. 

(2) From Dr. Majidi’s comments at the January 23, 2023 “State of the City” jamboree. The full comments, taken from the You Tube transcript and edited for clarity were: 

“Well good good evening everybody just want to remind you it’s a Kinder year. So we’re going to start on that note. Five years ago ago I moved to Aiken to become the director of Savannah River National Laboratory. I came here because the laboratory had a reputation for being able to consistently get the work done but also because I knew it had the largest potential for growth amongst all National Laboratories. 

Just three years ago the Department of Energy acted on their long-standing vision of an enduring National Laboratory in South Carolina and created an opportunity for the lab to be operated as an independent National Laboratory. The purpose of a National  Laboratory is to address large complex research and development challenges with a multi-disciplinary approach. Savannah River National Laboratory is the newest National Laboratory under the Department of Energy.  Nationwide there are 17 DOE National Labs and SRNL is the only lab in Carolina serving the Southeast region of the United States along with our good partners at Oakridge National Laboratories. 

[Mayor Osbon adjusts his microphone] 

One disadvantage of being a short laboratory director is that somebody else has to adjust your microphone for you. 

Today our laboratory is operated by a vital cooperatorion with University of South Carolina Clemson, South Carolina State, University of Georgia, and Georgia Institute of Technology. 

Our mission is ensuring America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative Science and Technology Solutions. We create high quality jobs in central Savannah River area, and our enduring economic engine attracting not only professionals from all across the country but also Advanced science and technology-based companies to CSRA. 

SRNL achieved its Mission by attracting motivating and training a diverse and highly skilled Workforce to execute on complex DOE programs. This new facility in Aitkin allows a laboratory to have a more direct presence in the community we serve with the goal of developing a pipeline of new Talent as well as developing the existing employee base. It will also complement our brand new Advanced manufacturing collaborative as USC Aiken, creating a hub for partnership with industry and Academia. 

What else are we planning to put in this building? 

“I should emphasize that this Savannah River National Laboratory building is being designed for only computational administrative work we don’t have any chemicals hoods or hazardous material in this facility uh….” 

[very light applause and few laughs from the crowd]

“There is a joke there somewhere right?” 

“SRNL employees will perform some of our computational modeling and simulation. We’ll  have a team of employees working with the university to increase our engagement with faculty postdoctoral and graduate students interns and minority serving institution programs. Some of our employees will work on non-proliferation training programs while other will work on Workforce Development and HR functions moreover as a collaboration Hub.” 

This facility will host faculty and students and allows for scientific Gatherings including technical discussions poster presentations and other student programs. We will have the Next Generation classroom space for training sessions and will support remote learning environments. It will host science and technology engineering and math camps for Teacher development workshops but a specific focus on K-12. 

University of South Carolina Aiken will have an enduring presence through their Workforce Development program. I’m very much looking forward to expanding our activities with USCA on both, in this new facility and advanced manufacturing collaborative building [Applause]

But most  importantly this building is the community face of the laboratory. A portion of this  building will be open to the public to Foster Community awareness of the work we do at SRNL, and its benefits to the society. The lobby will display our most recent scientific work, and this facility is the first stop for all new laboratory employee upon their entry for onboarding and training. 

It takes a great Community to make something like this possible I want to make sure that I take a moment to recognize Governor Henry mcmaster’s hard work to identify this need and to allocate a 20 million dollar for this facility. We’re grateful for Governor McMaster’s  enduring support. Moreover, we’re grateful to the South Carolina state legislatures for their wisdom to recognize the need and the necessity for this building to help us bring the laboratory to the community. I also want to recognize the city of Aiken, the Mayor’s office,  and the city council members for their steadfast supports to bring this project to reality. I want to recognize the Department of Energy for selecting the Battelle Savannah River Alliance as the management and operating company for the laboratory, to create an enduring capability in South Carolina. this building along with the advanced manufacturing collaborative brings the Savannah River National Laboratory into the Heart of the Aging Community we plan to be a productive citizens and hope to have a broader impact to our community.”

(3) As reported in “Offsite Infrastructure,” SRNL’s most vital missions involve nuclear weapons work and risk reduction from Cold War era nuclear weaponry materials production—most notably plutonium production. 

(4) The resolution in support of the Aiken Corporation contract with the City of Aiken; and the MPS letter to the Aiken Corporation



(5) The partial contract, which does not contain backdated agreements between MPS and Aiken Corporation, is available on pages 223-234 in the March 13, 2023 meeting agenda packet.

The minutes from that meeting are available on pages 19-23 of the March 27, 2023 meeting agenda packet.

March 2023, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab, Plutonium Settlement

FOIA’ed Again: A $65,000 Question

4 Comments

By Kelly Cornelius
March 27, 2023.

The City Of Aiken either cannot or will not provide an accounting for $65,000 out of $100,000 requested from plutonium settlement funds to pay its $9.5 million debt from the Pascalis project property purchases of 2021.

Over the course of the past year the City of Aiken’s responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pertaining to the now failed Project Pascalis have mirrored those of officials responsible for Project Pascalis.

City officials  have redacted information that should be public, denied a wide range of requested information, and even claimed they lacked the information requested. Many of the requests they did fill, or partially fill, have been quite costly to obtain, or were made cost-prohibitive to pursue. 

The list of concerns is long and they are well documented in the Aiken Chronicle’s City of Aiken’s Information Games series, which exposes the secrecy surrounding this unpopular project, as well as the lengths city officials will go to maintain that secrecy. These efforts now include redacting even the very name Project Pascalis from legal invoices! 

Kudos to all who fought to save downtown Aiken and shed light on Project Pascalis, whose name is now so tainted that FOIA officials have taken to redacting it.

Today, we can add ‘complete omission’ to that list of growing concerns regarding the actions of the City’s FOIA office.

The recently published  Pu Funds Con Games revealed that the City of Aiken is seeking to pay off $100,000 of “bond issuance” money.  What could possibly cost 100K to issue a bond? 

I recently FOIA’d to see an invoice for a payment to the Pope-Flynn law firm that appeared in the city’s finance department files.  The payment turned out to be for the $9.6 million General Obligation Bond for the “Parkway district” which would later be known as Project Pascalis. This FOIA request was submitted December 9th, 2022.(1) 

The response to that FOIA revealed that Pope-Flynn was paid $32,500 to perform its bond issuance tasks (see below), which led to more questions:

1. If the bond counsel was paid $32,500 (they actually charged $35,700 according to their invoice but were paid $32,500), what constitutes the remainder of the $100,000 in the plutonium funds line item request?

2. Why was this information not revealed in an earlier request for Pope-Flynn invoices(2) which I submitted on May 10th of 2022?

This very important information regarding that General Obligation Bond should have been included in that May FOIA response, but it was not. I would not be provided this Pope-Flynn payment information until some seven months later, after another FOIA request.  Why and how could officials tasked with organizing city records omit something this important? I posed this question to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh in a March 20, 2023 email; and at the time of this publishing there is no response. Cue the Jeopardy jingle.

Here is an overview of what was going on May 10, 2022,  the day the first FOIA was submitted. It was the day after the second and final reading of Aiken City Council voting to give away Newberry St to RPM Development Partners, which was represented by the City Attorney’s law partner Ray Massey. The meeting was packed and several citizens, including myself, spoke on the record regarding this conflict of interest, and many more spoke against the idea of giving away part of Newberry Street. 

May 10th was also the day the first lawsuit was filed against the city by Drew Johnson for violations of state ethics law. So on May 10th the situation was heating up, and the City was getting a much deserved public black eye for their actions as the anti-Pascalis movement grew, strengthened, and organized.

I paid $48 (or 2.5 Old Fashioneds) for that original May 10th FOIA and was instructed by then City of Aiken Economic Development Director, AMDC Executive Director, and FOIA Officer for his own department, Tim Obriant, on how to pay it.  I didn’t know at the time the depth of Obriant’s involvement but this would start to be revealed with the August 13th release of The Pascalis Attorneys. The point is that Obriant filling FOIA requests regarding Project Pascalis is the fox watching the henhouse personified.

After reading the emails unearthed in The Pascalis Attorneys, which showed the secrecy and deceit regarding preferred developers and conflicts of interest identified — all of which Obriant was copied on or had initiated himself as then Executive Director of the AMDC — one can’t help but wonder if the omission of that bond payment for the Pascalis Properties in that May FOIA return had anything to do with the city official who was filling them.

I not only asked City Manager Bedenbaugh why this information was withheld the first time I FOIA’d it, but also about the $65,000 discrepancy in the line item for his Pu Funds request in that March 20th, email. If $65,000 is unaccounted for in a $100,000 line item, what else might be amiss in the line below it, listed as “Other Capital Outlay” for $50.4M not to mention the $9.6M In the line about for property the AMDC contracted with RPM to sell for half of that . 

This city council and their staff are clearly accustomed to operating unquestioned. Their missteps on following development laws, FOIA requests and even open meeting laws have been routinely exposed by citizens this year. As we witness the failed Project Pascalis morph into Labscalis — the Bomb Plant lab proposed on the same, ill-begotten Pascalis properties — many questions remain.

FOOTNOTES: 

(1) Request #326-2022I request the invoice from Pope Flynn for the EFT payment dated 12/08/2021 for the amount of $32,500. The description of the payment is listed as 85.18 and is found on page 4 of the records listed in this link to save you time and me old fashion money. https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2751269&dbid=0&repo=City- of-Aiken-LF Thank you

(2) Request #86-2022
I request a copy of services rendered by Attorney Gary Pope for the City Of Aiken (City Council itself) not the AMDC by way of invoices from Oct 2021 to Present 5/10/2022.

Piggy graphic courtesy of Martin Buckley