Category Archives: November 2024

November 2024, Project Pascalis 2024

Which Project Pascalis Records Remain Hidden from Public View?

4 Comments

An Update to: City of Aiken Ordered to Produce Project Pascalis Records and Former AMDC Commissioners Seek Full Disclosure of Project Pascalis Records.

by Don Moniak
November 26, 2024

This past week, the Aiken Standard published an article titled “Aiken’s Got Nothing to Hide About Project Pascalis, City Council Members Say.”

The story centered on comments made by Aiken resident Luis Rinaldini at Aiken City Council’s November 12, 2024, public meeting. Rinaldini, who is also one of plaintiffs in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, aka as the Pascalis lawsuit, referenced a closed-door Executive Session scheduled for later that evening to discuss the Pascalis lawsuit while urging Council (Figure 1) to agree to a complete release of records.

Figure 1: Email from Aiken resident Luis Rinaldini to Aiken City Council that was also submitted
to Council during its regular November 12, 2024 public meeting. A more accurate figure for the
litigation costs is ~$100,000 as of August 2023, and probably no more than $200,000 as of today.


Rinaldini’s comments were followed by objections to his premises by two council members.

First, Councilwoman Andrea Gregory stated, in part, that:

“I don’t want to leave here tonight after this public comment with the perception that there’s things not being disclosed….we will be asking all the pertinent questions (tonight). But again, as far as things not being disclosed, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t know what’s not being disclosed and this keeps coming back and it keeps hounding us; so if somebody knows what’s not being disclosed please put it on the table.”

Councilman Ed Girardeau then stated, in part, that:

I’ll second what Andrea is saying. I don’t know of any indiscretions, anything at all that we’re trying to hide. There’s nothing being hidden. In fact, I will ask tonight to disclose every single thing.”

City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, who also serves as the City’s Custodian of Records, was notably silent on the issue.

Figure 2: Feature photo. Invoice submitted by Smith Massey Brodie Guynn and Mayes on June 30, 2024.
The caption in red represents an estimate of what is written in the redacted portion. (click to enlarge)


Putting what has not been disclosed “On the Table.”

What records has the City not publicly disclosed that would help shine a spotlight on the 2021-2022 Project Pascalis proceedings? Beginning with events in May of 2021, the following are five concrete examples of undisclosed records that collectively amount to at least hundreds of pages, if not thousands.

1. The notes for the May 6, 2021 meeting on the future of the Pascalis project and properties.

During the first week of May 2021, the first Project Pascalis effort collapsed. That effort was a public-private partnership between the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) and GAC LLC (Agent: Weldon Wyatt). At the time, GAC’s property investment arm WTC Investments LLC (Agent: Ray Massey) had eight properties under contracts that involved three property owners (1).

A meeting to discuss the options for the properties under contract to WTC was held (2) on May 6, 2021. This was likely the setting where the decision was made to pursue a strategy for property acquisition, in which a nongovernmental body, the Aiken Chamber of Commerce, took assignment of the $9.5 million of WTC purchase and sales contracts (PSA) as a surrogate for the City of Aiken and the AMDC. In doing so, the Chamber assumed the $135,000 in contract earnest money previously deposited by WTC Investments—who in turn had their earnest funds returned.

Within a few weeks of the meeting, the AMDC was informing prospective developers that it held contracts on 1.6 acres in downtown Aiken—which would be the seven Pascalis properties.

If four Council members and/or five AMDC Commissioners attended this session, the meeting was arguably illegal under SC FOIA laws because any gathering of a quorum of members must be held in public view.

If a decision was made that bound the city to any future reimbursement if the Chamber of Commerce somehow lost its $135,000 in earnest money, that would at best be what city officials have termed as a “misstep.” At worst, such an agreement would arguably violate city code governing City Council’s powers to approve expenditures—because such spending must be approved during a public meeting.

2. The Smith Massey Brodie Guynn and Mayes (SMBGM) invoices.

As reported in The City of Aiken’s Law Firm, a redacted June 30, 2021, SMBGM invoice (Figure 2, above) from City Attorney Gary Smith to the City of Aiken shows work involving the Pascalis properties during the week the WTC contracts with the Shah family were assigned to the Chamber of Commerce.

Removing the redactions from this particular invoice, as well as other SMBGM invoices to the City for that time period could answer the question of who wrote the contract assignment agreements that resulted in the release of $135,000 of earnest money to WTC Investments and GAC. The importance here is that Massey—who had also been described as WTC’s Attorney just fifteen months prior by former Aiken County Attorney Jim Holley—represented GAC and WTC in the contract negotiations and preparations.

Whether SMBGM attorneys within the City Attorney’s office worked to recover earnest money for a firm represented by a member of that same SMBGM team could be answered by providing uncensored invoices.

3. AMDC and Aiken City Council Executive Sessions Minutes

As reported in Project Pascalis Transparency Index, the AMDC spent more than half of its time during public meetings in closed-door Executive Sessions. In addition, Aiken City Council held joint closed-door Executive Sessions with the AMDC on three occasions in 2022: March 22nd, June 13th, and June 27th.

While closed meetings may have been justified at the time under South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (SC FOIA) exemptions, there is no requirement under SC FOIA for closing the doors of such meetings.

Likewise, there is no prohibition on disclosing the meeting minutes and/or notes from those Executive Sessions. Under SC FOIA, the City of Aiken may release the minutes, or it can choose to keep them a secret.

4. Emails between Ray Massey and Tim O’Briant.

Ray Massey was the lead organizer of the Project Pascalis investment and development group known as RPM Development Partners. As Executive Director of the AMDC, Tim O’Briant coordinated the public side of the public-private partnership with RPM. As illustrated in A Hotel in the Alley, the two regularly communicated by email.

In fact, in October 2022, the Aiken Standard submitted its own FOIA request for a number of Pascalis records, including correspondence between O’Briant and Ray Massey.

In its response, the City admitted there were such records, but chose to deny disclosure by citing FOIA exemptions (Figure 4).

Figure 4: City of Aiken response to a portion of the Aiken Standard FOIA request from October 2020. (click to enlarge)

In the past six months, the City has released, via FOIA, correspondence from Mr. Massey to both O’Briant and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh for the period May 1, 2021 to September 1, 2021. There is no rationale remaining to not disclose every email to and from Massey between October 1, 2021 and September 29, 2022; the day after the Pascalis project was cancelled by the AMDC.

5. The “Privilege Log”

As described in Former AMDC Commissioners Seek Full Disclosure of Pascalis Records, a court filing by former AMDC Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chairman Chris Verenes seeks the release of a sixteen-page “privilege log” of ~120 written records that mostly involved, in some manner, AMDC Attorney Gary Pope.

The court filing also reported that Mr. Wood and Mr. Verenes released 1,318 pages of non-privileged email correspondence to the Plaintiffs—about 1,318 more pages of emails than the City itself has provided to the Plaintiffs.

Commentary

Aiken City Council has several choices. Council can support the City’s dogged positions regarding Project Pascalis records that have been in effect since the spring of 2022–which included exorbitant FOIA fee determinations that deterred public inquiry.

Or, Council could direct its attorneys to fully comply with the recent Court Order to release records to the Pascalis lawsuit Plaintiffs.

Or best, Council could direct City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh to publicly disclose, in a readily accessible format, “every single thing” related to the Pascalis project. If this approach were to be adopted, the City could then restore the AMDC’s website, which was removed from view several months ago, and post all Pascalis project records there.

On September 29, 2022, the day Project Pascalis was officially cancelled, AMDC Vice Chair Chris Verenes issued a public statement that included the sentence “The public deserves no less than the truth.” Full release of the Pascalis project files is the surest pathway to the whole truth about the project.

Figure 4. Aiken County Council discussing the issue of Project Pascalis public records.
Ed Girardeau (far left) committed to requesting that “every single thing” be released.
(see the 59:00 minute mark of the You tube meeting video for the full discussion).

Footnotes

(1) The properties were:

“The Shah Property:” Beckman Building at 106 Laurens St SW, Hotel Aiken, Holley House motel, Taj Aiken restaurant, McGhee Building at the corner of Richland and Newberry, and Warneke Cleaners. The “Shah Property” was purchased by the AMDC for $7.5 million.

Anderson family holdings: Newberry Hall, which the AMDC paid $2.0 million.

The former Joe Harrison State Farm property on Newberry Street was the eighth parcel under contract to WTC, but one that was not transferred to AMDC control. It was eventually purchased by Aiken Alley Holdings for $675,000, and later became an integral part of the second Pascalis project design.

(2) There are two reference points for the May 6, 2021 meeting.

First, a May 4, 2021, memo (Figure 5) from Tim O’Briant to AMDC officials stated that “…(Councilwoman) Lessie (Price) is setting up the Thursday meeting to get everyone in one room…”  Second, Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. billed 7.2 hours to attend a meeting on May 6, 2021.

Figure 5: Portion of May 4, 2024 email memorandum from Tim O’Briant to AMDC Commissioners Keith Wood, Chris Verenes, and David Jameson. The memo was obtained in July 2022, via a FOIA request for Jameson’s emails. The City of Aiken failed to provide fifteen days of emails, from May 5 to May 19, 2021, that led up to Jameson signing the contract assignment for the Shah properties. (click to enlarge)



(3) On October 17, 2022, the Aiken Standard submitted a FOIA request to the City of Aiken for information pertaining to the Pascalis project. It was the paper’s only known FOIA request from 2022 and 2023 pertaining directly to Project Pascalis—unless one counts a request for pre-2022 information regarding only the Hotel Aiken.

Request item #9 was for “The conditional purchase and sale agreement between the Aiken Municipal Development Commission and RPM Development Partners.”

In its response, the City also denied that request, citing the SC FOIA exemption for “Documents of and documents incidental to proposed contractual arrangements and documents of and documents incidental to proposed sales or purchases of property.”

However, on November 10, 2022, the Aiken Chronicles published Downtown Aiken Half Price Sale, which contained a link to the $5 million Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) between the AMDC and RPM; the same PSA that had been requested by the Standard.

The PSA was obtained after it was inadvertently placed in the city’s document repository on October 21, 2022, about the same time as the Standard’s FOIA request. It was removed on November 11th, the day after the Aiken Chronicles story.

Even though it was a well-read article, the Aiken Standard never reported on the very document that it had requested via FOIA, even after it became publicly available by other means—and remains available.

The Aiken Standard has chosen since that time to omit from its reporting the very information it had sought via a FOIA request.

The availability of the PSA was a point of consternation for the AMDC and the City. On November 10, 2022, in regard to the inadvertent release of the PSA, then-Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant wrote to AMDC Chairman Keith Wood that:

“It took some investigating but I’ve now uncovered that Sara posted the PSA to the online city records system despite the fact that we’ve steadfastly refused to release the document as allowed by FOIA. I’ve alerted Stuart, and he intends to remove the file despite Mr. Moniak now possessing and publishing it. The exemption would still apply to the June amendment now demanded.”

(The Aiken Standard and its parent company the, Charleston Post and Courier, declined to comment on the paper’s reticence in reporting on the $5 million PSA)

Other related stories:

Executive Session Backgrounder describes Open Meetings law and examines two Aiken City Council closed-door Executive Sessions.

A Project Pascalis Timeline provides an outline of events from late 2019 to the cancellation of the project in September 2022.

Moot or Not Moot describes the status of the Pascalis lawsuit as of September 2023.

The City of Aiken’s Information Games, Part 1, details the way in which three separate FOIA requestors across a two month period were all met with the exact same exorbitant fee determination of $5213 involving 336 hours. The story epitomizes the efforts city officials made to deter public inquiry into the Pascalis project.

Aiken County, animal welfare, November 2024

Aiken County Awaits New Spay/Neuter Clinic

5 Comments

by Douglas Higbee
November 26, 2024

The Aiken County Animal Shelter is among the various Aiken County agencies designated for funding through the recently renewed Capital Project Sales Tax (CPST). Passed by voters on the recent November 5th ballot, the tax will contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to fund infrastructure improvements for various county and municipal programs. $1.7 million is earmarked for “Aiken County Animal Shelter upgrades, expansions, and new equipment.”

What exactly these “upgrades” and “expansions” will be, and when they will be implemented, is hard to say. The County Council ad hoc CPST committee initially slated the $1.7 million for a spay/neuter clinic, but then backed off that commitment, with the final line item reading “upgrades, expansions, and new equipment.”

While the dogs and cats of Aiken County could always use better care in general, a new spay/neuter clinic in particular is sorely needed.

Friends of the Animal Shelter (FOTAS) President Jennifer Miller says that while the Aiken SPCA already has a low-cost spay and neuter clinic, that facility can’t handle the large volume of county animals needing that service. In addition, there are fewer and fewer veterinarians available in the county to serve the needs of its pet population. A larger and improved spay and neuter clinic, says Miller, will significantly lower the number of dogs brought to the shelter.

And that is a large number. Over the last four years the Animal Shelter has received approximately 9,000 dogs, either as strays or owner surrenders. In that same time period, the Shelter’s dog transfer program has shipped over 55% of these dogs to rescues and shelters up north.1

Indeed, Aiken County is dependent on the transfer program to keep its euthanasia numbers low. According to Miller, before the transfer program was implemented in 2009, the shelter euthanized approximately 90% of its animals. Since then, largely because of the transfer program, euthanasia rates have consistently been below 10%.

However, one can’t assume that transfer program will be robust forever, as it is dependent on donations and on shelters up north. Christine Hanko, Intake Director of Dog Star Rescue in Hartford, CT, says her program receives approximately 25 dogs per month from southern states. And while she sees the program as continuing in some form in the foreseeable future, she notes that, because of the everyday pressures on Hartford area families, lately her organization has had to take in more local dogs. This change can only have a long-term impact on the number of animals from South Carolina that organizations like Hanko’s can accept, and the dependence on transfers up north speaks to the need for larger and low-cost spay and neuter facilities, as well as stronger oversight into breeding operations.

FOTAS President Miller points to the Greenville County Animal Shelter’s spay and neuter clinic that, after only six years, has reduced the intake of stray animals by nearly 60 percent. Another recent initiative in Greenville County is for an animal care facility that will feature a new spay and neuter clinic, as well as a center for dog training and humane education. Land has been purchased, and the Greenville Humane Society hopes to raise $8.5 million for construction of the facility.

Miller hopes such a combination of public funding and private donations can be replicated in Aiken County.

Given the nature of county government, it is up to citizens to keep the pressure on county officials to schedule and complete a low-cost spay/neuter clinic. And once the project gets going, an extra donation to FOTAS would certainly help as well.

___________________

  1. Aiken County Animal Shelter Data: 2020 to 2023

Aiken County Government, Development Issues, Freedom of Information, House of Raeford Chicken Plant, November 2024

The Chicken Plant Grants 

5 Comments


According to information obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the South Carolina Department of Agriculture (SCDA), Aiken County was awarded a $6 million grant by SCDA for the purpose of helping to develop the proposed House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant. Had it been finalized, the grant would have supplemented a probable $10 million grant from the federal government to House of Raeford. The existence of the Aiken County grant and the details of the federal grant proposal were never disclosed. Had the project proceeded, the proposed House of Raeford plant near Exit 22 would have received $16 million in direct public subsidies in addition to discounted tax, water, and sewer rates.

by Don Moniak
November 16, 2024

Two weeks after Aiken County Council opted not to move forward on a tax incentive package for the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, aka Project Sunny, the Aiken Standard published an editorial by South Carolina Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weathers that criticized the Council and took a swipe at Aiken County in general for allowing Project Sunny to fail.

Weathers asserted that “the Aiken community will “miss out on the pride that comes from supporting local farmers,” while further stating that Council Council “let their constituents down in failing to gather all the facts;” and that “I’ve heard a lot of misinformation about this project, and I’m disappointed that council never provided an opportunity for the public to learn the facts and weigh the pros and cons.” 

What Commissioner Weathers neglected to mention is that the Agriculture Department, the House of Raeford, County Council, the City of Aiken, and the Western Carolina Economic Development Partnership kept the public totally in the dark by failing to provide any information on Project Sunny until opposition to the effort emerged and rapidly grew.

Instead, Project Sunny’s “sponsor” was kept secret until it could no longer be hidden. Only then did House of Raeford and its allies in state government mount what turned out to be a belated, and ultimately futile public relations campaign to try to salvage the project—a campaign that began with a “flowery” presentation to Aiken City Council held during a closed-door Executive Session that should have been on the regular meeting agenda and held in full public view.

In retrospect, Weathers’ frustration at Council’s reticence to disclose any of the facts concerning the project, though not his unnecessary barbs, seems a bit rational because prior to any opposition Project Sunny was a sure bet; and a traditionally opaque approval process was the best means towards winning that bet.

This is evidenced by two grant proposals totaling $16 million that were either barely discussed or not discussed at all during the debate. 

First, there was a $10 million grant proposal by House of Raeford in November 2023, assisted by the Agriculture Department, to the federal subsidy program known as the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program (MPPEP). The existence of a possible $10 million grant was referenced in a WJBF story and an Aiken Standard report, but no details were ever offered.

Second, on February 14, 2024, Aiken County submitted an application for a $6 million state grant to the South Carolina Department of Agriculture’s Growing Agribusiness Fund—which was funded by a $40 million legislative allocation in 2023. The County’s grant proposal, which was never publicly disclosed, included House of Raeford financial data—assets, revenues, profits, and costs—that was absent from the federal grant application.  

The application shows that, contrary to Commissioner Weathers’ assertions, Aiken County government was very well informed about the project details, including water and sewer demands of at least 33.8 million gallons per month—amounts quite similar to the estimates first implied in January 2024 when the City of Aiken sought a generic rate discount for water and sewer use for major users of its utilities.

Aiken County’s grant proposal also displayed knowledge that House of Raeford’s Aiken plant would not only replace its increasingly controversial West Columbia plant, but it would also double the capacity of chickens processed– up to 57 million per year at a rate of up to 1.3 million per week. The doubling of capacity was also known to be dependent upon the creation of 260 new chicken houses to raise broiler chickens, with upwards of 80 new or expanded growers needed to operate the new facilities—a fact that was greatly and inexplicably underreported during the March-April debate period.

Just twelve days after submitting its proposal, Aiken County was awarded the grant by the “Agriculture Agribusiness Infrastructure Incentives Distribution Initiative Panel” during the panel’s Feburary 26, 2024 meeting.

The two grant proposals and the award to Aiken County suggest that the House of Raeford plant was a done deal prior to two unexpected events: a sewer capacity shortfall and a strong public opposition movement—especially from nearby residents.

County Council Vice-Chair Andrew Siders, who, along with County Chair Gary Bunker, were directly lobbied by Governor Henry McMaster (Figure 1) in early April of 2024, would later tell the Aiken Standard that the opposition was “overwhelming,” a sentiment echoed by County Councilman Phil Napier; who represents the district where the plant was proposed to be located.

Figure 1. Emails between state government officials, House of Raeford executive Jantzen Bradley, and lobbyist Tony Denny.
The calls occurred two weeks before the Second Reading of a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) Ordinance that would have provided tax rate discounts that can be viewed on Page 17 of the County’s Grant Proposal. The details of the FILOT agreement were never made public during the two months it was in Council’s legislative process. The FILOT agreement failed, at least for one year, after Council opted to not move the Ordinance forward during the Second Reading, which can be heard from a link in The Chicken Plant Tapes. (Email obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.)


The Chicken Plant Location

The two grant applications collectively revealed the location in the northern portion of Aiken County, near I-20’s Exit 22, was based primarily on two factors.

First, it is within 60 miles of most of the company’s existing 80 chicken broiler house growers that supply its current needs.

Second, Aiken County was described in the MEPPA grant application as being “in a rural western/central region of South Carolina, away from major metropolitan areas. This region is represented by rural, underserved, and disenfranchised populations,” (emphasis added) “nearly 13 percent of housing units are vacant,” and the cost of living in Aiken County is lower than that of Lexington County.

The company first settled on a location within Verenes Business Park, which is already zoned for industrial use. As of November 2023, the company had submitted a Letter of Intent (LOI) to purchase the former Avara Pharmaceuticals properties and building on Windham Boulevard.

The site is just south of an undeveloped 146-acre tract owned by the City of Aiken that would have provided a visual screening from the Interstate. However, it is also only a third of a mile upwind from the closest homes in the Taylor Ridge neighborhood, which is composed of quarter to half-million dollar homes on 2-5 acre lots.

The Avara properties total 24.1 acres and the main building is approximately 170,000 square feet, which corresponds to the estimated 165,000+ square foot facility size identified in the County’s grant application, as well as in subsequent reports. The offering price was $12 million, and closing was anticipated for April 2024. 

According to an email from Will Williams of the Western Carolina Economic Development Partnership to a local resident, House of Raeford passed on the Avara property after “they determined they could ‘settle’ but not be able to get exactly what they wanted.” Another issue raised in the Williams email was that “I didn’t want odor nor feathers on Windham Blvd”—legitimate issues raised by chicken slaughterhouse opponents.

By the time the County’s grant application was submitted to SC Department of Agriculture, the location had changed to an 87-acre parcel along East Frontage Road next to the existing Shaw plant. This site is generally upwind from more than 100 homes along Old Camp Long Road—the closest being only 1,000 feet— and at least thirty properties in a newly developed area known as Big Branch Farms, where lot sizes range from 5-25 acres. It was to be three miles generally downwind, but close enough to be of concern, to the Summer Lakes neighborhood and the older Millbrook neighborhood.

Clearly, House of Raeford’s due diligence that led to a conclusion that the “region was rural, underserved, and disenfranchised” was undermined by the fact that the area is increasingly dotted with suburban and exurban developments of Aiken, as well as Augusta and Lexington, within an older mix of farms and mixed-income neighborhoods. In fact, instead of a chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, a suburban-style subdivision is now planned for the East Frontage Road site.

In its search for a more suitable rural setting than West Columbia, House of Raeford instead chose an area undergoing steady residential growth. Instead of looking at its own demographics research deficiencies, the company and its allies in state government blamed the failure of the project on public “misinformation.”

Avara Plant site, with one-mile downwind radius indicated
East Frontage Road site, with one-mile downwind radius indicated

(Feature photo: Concept design of the exterior of the chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant contained in the County’s grant application).

City Government, Farmers Market - Williamsburg St Project, November 2024, Parks & Recreation

Does the Structure of the New Farmers Market Committee Pose a Bias Against Farmers?

1 Comment

Aiken City Council created a new Farmers Market Committee in August 2024 to advise city staff on the its operations. The committee will consist of “registered vendors,” and only “registered vendors” are allowed to vote for the committee members. Since Aiken City Council opted not to define a “registered vendor,” City staff has since defined it as one who “has submitted an application, has been approved to sell at the market, and does so at least 18 times in 6 months.” The origin of the definition is unknown.

by Don Moniak
November 16, 2024

On August 25, 1958, the Aiken City Council passed a City Ordinance* that created a Farmers Market Commission; which gave the Commission the authority to operate a Farmers Market in the City of Aiken. The membership back then included the County Agent, the Supervisor of Aiken County, the Executive Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, a member of City Council, a farmer who was a member of The Grange, and two residents of the City who were appointed by City Council.

The Aiken County Farmers Market has been located at Williamsburg Street and Richland Avenue since that time. The property was owned by the South Carolina Department of Transportation until October 2022, at which time ownership of the Farmers Market Parkway and right-of-way was transferred to the City of Aiken.

The Commission existed until sometime in the early 2000’s. There are no historic records of its proceedings in the City’s document repository; nor any record of it having been disbanded. At some point, City staff became the de facto supervisors of the market.

In August 2024, at the urging of staff, Aiken City Council amended the old, unenforced Farmers Market Commission Ordinance with Ordinance 08122024, thus replacing the Commission with a Farmer’s Market Committee and formally transferring operational power to city staff.

The Ordinance (Figure 1) contains one contradiction and lacks some clarity in definitions.

On the one hand, Council created a committee “to advise and regulate a farmers market in the city.” At the same time, the Committee’s authority to regulate is undermined by the provision stating that any vote on a policy matter before it is only a “recommendation to the city staff who oversee the market.” The Committee only has the power to recommend, not regulate.

The lack of clarity regards committee membership—which is composed of seven members who are tasked with meeting four times a year—and the voting powers of vendors.

The only criteria for Committee participation—including nominating, voting, and/or serving—is to be a registered vendor. The Ordinance states:

“The farmers market committee shall consist of seven members who are elected by the registered vendors of the market at the time of the election. One month prior to elections, nominations will take place. The seven members will consist of four farmers, one wholesales, one baker/other and one crafter. Terms will be one year, unless the committee member is no longer a registered vendor of the market.”

Unfortunately, the term “registered vendor” was never defined by Council.

Figure 1: Farmer’s Market Commitee Ordinance passed on August 12, 2024. (click to enlarge)


On Tuesday, November 12, 2024, Aiken County resident and Farmers Market vendor Vicki Simons addressed City Council— during the open public comment period of its regular meeting—with concerns over the inconsistency between the actual Ordinance and its implementation as it pertains to “registered vendors.”

Her speech (viewable at the 44:00 mark) was as follows:

“Good evening, Mayor Milner and members of Aiken City Council. My name is Vicki Simons. I live north of Aiken in Aiken County. I am a 100% Grower/Producer of microgreens, who first began selling produce at the Aiken Farmers Market in 2019.

My posts on Facebook prove that I am a strong advocate of the Aiken Farmers Market and my fellow vendors, particularly those who sell healthy food.

In June of this year, I:

— expressed my support for changing the City’s ordinance regarding creating a “farmers market committee”; and
— asked what the term ‘registered’ means when it comes to vendors who can be elected to the Farmers Market Committee.

A City employee answered my question that night, in somewhat vague terms.**

Council adopted the change to the Farmers Market Committee Code this past August.

Please note that there is no detail in the Code about the criteria of a ‘registered vendor.’

Last week, I received from a City employee an email stating that nominations for the “farmers market committee” could be submitted during certain hours from November 11 – 22. In that same email, there was a paragraph that stated the following:

“Criteria: A registered vendor is a vendor who has submitted an application, has been approved to sell at the market, and does so at least 18 times in 6 months.
“Individuals elected to the committee who no longer meet the registered vendor requirement shall resign.
“Individuals not meeting the registered vendor requirement cannot vote.”

I asked the City employee from where this limitation came. No answer has come yet. I am extremely concerned that these new, undocumented “criteria” may restrict:

— Both those who can be nominated for the Farmers Market Committee;
— And those who may vote for Farmers Market Committee nominees.

Again, the criteria states that a vendor had to be approved to sell at the market ‘at least 18 times in 6 months.’

The criteria do not state which 6 months. What if the 6 months under consideration is outside the growing season?

As a year-round vendor at the Aiken Farmers Market, I know of only 3 vendors of non- egg and non-meat grown produce — other than myself — who are also there year-round. If a vendor sells only once a week, 18 times represents 18 weeks — or a time frame of about 4-1/2 months. If a farmer has a growing season that is shorter than 4-1⁄2 months, why should he/she be removed from consideration of being on the Farmers Market Committee?

Some local farmers have been doing business at the Aiken Farmers Market for many years. In my opinion, they have gained experience and knowledge that I believe must not be discounted by the additional criteria stated in the email.

I am also concerned that these new criteria may lean toward being an “ex post facto law.’ (Editor’s note: An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law).

Let us make sure that we abide by the irrefutable leadership law called “The Law of Navigation,” so that in charting the course for the Aiken Farmers Market Committee, we highly value local farmers.

With the Council’s permission, I can read a questionnaire* that I wrote, which I believe would provide more structure to the Aiken Farmers Market Committee nomination process than a blank canvas.

Do you have any questions?”

Following her speech, the only comment from Council came from Councilwoman Kay Brohl, who stated, in part:

“My colleagues, correct me if I am wrong but I think when we talked about this, what we wanted to be sure was to include our local farmers and not exclude them. If you are a farmer that doesn’t have irrigation, and your crop fails — like when we’ve had a month with no rain, or we had the deluge — if you have tomatoes or certain crops, you’re not going to have any, so you’re not going to be able to come and bring something to the market. So I think she makes a very valid point because our whole gist was to just make sure we included our local farmers.”

However, no other Councilmembers nor City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh offered any followup to Ms. Brohl’s concerns.

No action was taken to address the seemingly arbitrary nature of city staff’s definition of a registered Farmers Market vendor; a definition that clearly has the potential to exclude longtime vendors whose market season might not be six months long—most notably farmers—from participation in the Committee.

Council failed to ask about the origin of the new and improvised definition of “registered vendor,” and has so far opted to allow city staff to amend an ordinance without Council approval.

Since there is no allowance for more than one election a year, the removal of two farmer representatives from the Committee could be disruptive to its proceedings; and even result in farmers temporarily moving from majority representation to minority representation—thus undermining Council’s intent in practice as well as theory.

Footnotes

*Photos of the 1980 Farmer’s Market Commission Ordinance, with reference to the 1958 Ordinance. (click to enlarge).

** The minutes for the June 10, 2024 Council meeting reflect that the “vague” answer to the question was as follows:

“Eric Gordon, Tourism Manager, stated registered is an ambiguous term. He said he was looking at this as someone who is paid to sell at the Market and is coming regularly at the Market. They pay, but they also have to be attending. He said that was his definition of registered.” (Page 14).

***The proposed questionnaire can be found here.

November 2024, Savannah River Site

DOE’s 2037 Deadlines for SRS: Realistic or Illusory?

1 Comment

by Don Moniak
November 12, 2024

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) has two major milestones to achieve by 2037. One is legally binding, the other is a commitment that remains negotiable.

Surplus Weapons Plutonium

DOE is legally bound to removing 9.5 metric tons of surplus military plutonium to another state. While any state will do, the plan is to ship the plutonium in a diluted waste form to the underground transuranic waste dump in New Mexico known as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).

This commitment is enshrined in the $600 million Settlement Agreement between the State of South Carolina and the federal government; more commonly known as “The Plutonium Settlement.”

Any failure of DOE/SRS to remove all or part of the 9.5 metric tons* of surplus plutonium (Pu) metals and powders will trigger new financial penalties that could be worth billions of dollars to South Carolina. The potential penalties involve two formulas.

First, the percentage of the 9.5 tons remaining on January 1, 2037 will be multiplied by $1.5 billion. Thus, five tons remaning could yield the state $7.5 billion, if the agreement is enforced.

Second, $1 million per day, but only up to $100 million per year, will be awarded to the State for any plutonium not removed after January 1, 2037; and for each year thereafter.

However, the loophole is that the agreement cannot be enforced until 2042 if DOE/SRS has removed more than half, or 4.75 MT, of surplus Pu by 2037.

The surplus Pu is currently being converted to a more stable waste form via a process called “dilute and dispose.” Plans to increase production through the development of a second glovebox processing line remain as tentative as the funding that is required—in this case upwards of $880 million.

As reported in Surplus Plutonium Disposition Timeline, in April 2024, DOE officials could not answer whether it will meet the 2037 deadline, telling the South Carolina Nuclear Advisory Council that “we will have to get back to you.”

Even when the current rate of processing is coupled with a scheduled, but tentative, increase in processing, DOE/SRS could still end up seven or more years behind schedule.

High Level Radioactive “Liquid Waste” Commitments.

Figure 1. Schematic of the radioactive high level “liquid” waste at SRS.
From Liquid Waste Program: Risk Reduction and Waste Removal Update.

The same uncertainties as the surplus plutonium program exist with the processing of the site’s vast quantity of unstable, high-level radiochemical waste—commonly and kindly referred to by the public relations euphemism “liquid waste”—into more stable waste forms.

DOE/SRS is committed, via a Federal Facilities Agreement with the the State of South Carolina, to complete the processing of the remaining 33.4 million gallons of “liquid” radiochemical waste currently stored (Figure 1 above) in massive underground storage tanks by 2037. This commitment is not legally binding and the deadline can be extended, again. No fines are triggered by a failure to meet the deadline.

While DOE presents 2037 as a hard target, it remains an estimate dependent upon both future funding and the technical and logistical difficulties associated with the waste processing.

According to a September 13, 2024, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) report, DOE’s waste processing contractor, Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC), only has a fifty-percent confidence level in their waste processing predictive models.

This news arrived only two months after a presentation to the SRS Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) contained a major inconsistency regarding the 2037 deadline.

During the July 29, 2024 CAB meeting, SRMC presented a powerpoint slide indicating a 2037 “end state of completing the clean-up of the high level liquid waste at SRS by 2037 (on track).” (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Slide shown at the 1:18:00 mark during the DOE/SRS presentation to the SRS CAB
on on the radioactive liquid waste program at SRS’ F and H areas.
Figure 3: The slide provided in the hard copy handout, which is also the final version on the SRS CAB website.


However, the 2037 reference was removed from the provided hard copy handouts to the CAB members and attending citizens. In the hard copy provided prior to the meeting (Figure 3)—which is also what is available in the final version of the altered presentation on the SRS CAB website— the statement “SRMC is contracted by DOE to achieve an end state of completing the clean-up of the high-level liquid waste by 2037 (on track)” was removed.

Why was this sentence censored from the final, cleared document?

According to former DOE External Affairs Director Amy Boyette, all SRS CAB presentations must be cleared not only by DOE officials, but by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In this case the original powerpoint presentation was left unmodified while the final document matched the OMB’s cleansing.

Savannah River Site Watch Executive Director Tom Clements, who has followed the issue for decades and who spotted the discrepancy, describes the omission as a sign that the federal government is not financially committed to the 2037 date:

“It turns out that OMB was right to raise a flag about the suspect 2037 high-level waste tank closure date, which I haven’t trusted since SRS started pushing that date.  SRS tank-closure dates always get pushed into the future and costs always go up, which make contractors happy but prolong envionmental risks. With NNSA having more control at SRS, I’m worried we might see cleanup programs cut back, with money transferred to the program to make plutonium pits for uneeded new nuclear warheads. Such a step to reduce the cost of the environmental liability at SRS would undermine the public’s national environmental security and must be opposed.”


Footnote

* According to DOE, in 2019 there were 11.5 metric tons of plutonium at SRS (Figure 4), meaning that up to 2.0 metric tons (MT) will still remain in storage even if the plutonium settlement goal is reached. Whereas SRS has in the past stored up to 1.0 MT of nonsurplus weapons plutonium, that exact amount is unknown today.

Figure 4. Rounded plutonium inventory at SRS K-Area facility.
From K-Area Pu Down Blending Overview and Update, presented to SRS CAB in July 2023.
The subsequent presentation was titled Downblend Operations Improvement Initiative .
(click to enlarge).


Previous articles pertaining to surplus plutonium and “liquid waste.”

Offsite Insights 2022-1 discusses the dilute and dispose program and the rate of plutonium waste processing.

Feds Propose 27 More Tons of Plutonium at SRS details the latest environmental impact statement (EIS) involving the future of plutonium within nuclear weapon components known as “pits.”

“Appalling and Abysmal” describes the Record of the Decision for the latest EIS.

Surplus Plutonium Disposition: “We will have to get back to you” chronicles the April 2024 SC Nuclear Advisory Council meeting and provides and estimate of the future rate of surplus plutonium processing to a diluted waste form.

The DOE-DHEC-EPA Radioactive Waste Public Relations Collaboration details both the status of the Federal Facility Agreement and the difficulties with hydrogen during waste stabilization.