Category Archives: October 2022

City Government, City Parks and Recreation, October 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

A Postponement, Repeal, Park Lease, Official Response, and Behind the Closed Door

October 22, 2022 donaldmoniak 4 Comments

The October 24, 2022 Aiken City Council Meeting (7 pm) and Workshop (5 pm); Aiken City Hall, 111 Chesterfield St, SW.
Local Public Policy Update 2022-1

by Don Moniak

October 22, 2022

According to the Aiken City Council Meeting Agenda Packet for October 24, 2022:

The second reading for the proposed Silver Bluff Road shopping center adjacent to The Village at Woodside will be postponed until November 14th at the earliest.
Council will consider the repeal of the contentious Newberry Street privatization ordinance.
A discussion regarding a proposal to build a multi-million dollar soccer fields complex, and lease 20-30 acres of Citizens Park to the Aiken Futbol Club will be held during the 5 p.m. workshop.
The Aiken City Manager is providing official responses to some citizen concerns.
Council will meet behind closed doors in executive session for the fifth time since June 13th to discuss Project Pascalis; this time to hear legal advice.

“Shopping Center” Reading Deferred, But Still a “Grocery Store.”

At the request of Woodside Plantation’s Silver Bluff Development Corporation, Aiken City Council has deferred further discussion of the proposed Shopping Center on Silver Bluff Road until November 14th at the earliest:

“Grocery Store at Village at Woodside: At the request of the developer, this item, scheduled for second reading tonight, has been continued to November 14, 2022.” (Page 84, “Issues and Updates”)

The decision was unexpected. The city had posted notices for an October 24th meeting as early as October 7th; and paid for a published notice in the Aiken Standard on October 14th and 17th.

Public Notices for Second Reading of Annexation and amended Village at Woodside Concept Plan

City officials continue to defy their own zoning ordinance by calling the nearly 60,000 square foot proposed structure a “grocery store” instead of a “shopping center,” which is defined in the city’s zoning ordinance as:

“A group of at least two commercial establishments typically planned, constructed, and managed as a single entity, with on-site parking for customers and employees, and with delivery of goods separate from customer access.”

What is proposed is a “47,270 square foot specialty store and seven smaller 1400 square foot shops,” which by definition is a shopping center. No reason for the second postponement was provided by the developer; which has persisted in presenting its proposal as a small-scale development despite requiring a 339-space parking lot.

No reason was provided for the deferral. But before unanimously approving the proposal on September 26th, five council members requested that the developers not return for a second reading until after they brought forth promised conceptual drawings, and met with neighbors concerned with noise, traffic, and property value impacts. No drawings have been publicly presented and a meeting to resolve concerns was not held until October 17th—after meeting notices were posted and published.

No reason was provided for the deferral. But before unanimously approving the proposal on September 26th, five council members requested that the developers not return for a second reading until after they brought forth promised conceptual drawings, and met with neighbors concerned with noise, traffic, and property value impacts. No drawings have been publicly presented and a meeting to resolve concerns was not held until October 17th—after meeting notices were posted and published.

(Update: On November 28, 2023, City Council approved the Shopping Center after a Second Reading. Thirty days later two neighboring property owners, Edward Rahe and John Veldman, filed an appeal of Council’s decision in State Court.

Full Dislosure: Don Moniak assisted in the preparation of the appeal.)

The Repeal of a Privatization Ordinance

Less than six months after voting 6-1 to approve an ordinance allowing the privatization of a portion of Newberry Street, Aiken City Council will hold its first reading to repeal the same ordinance once deemed as central to the success of Project Pascalis. More than 2,800 registered voters in the city have signed a legal petition calling, in part, for replacement of the ordinance with one that bans any privatization efforts on Newberry Street.

The repeal ordinance states that the $100 million plus downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis has been terminated. This language contradicts a notarized affidavit submitted to the courts by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh stating the plan is “currently on hold” and only “key portions of Project Pascalis were rescinded” by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission.

Proposed Ordinance to Repeal the Newberry Street Privatization Ordinance

The two highly contentious readings of the original ordinance held on March 28th and May 9th eventually triggered two lawsuits against the city that allege that conflicts of interest and violations of state ethics laws tainted the process.

The ordinance originally proposed to transfer ownership of 0.6145 acres of Newberry Sreet—-a 72 foot X 368 foot parcel—to Project Pascalis developer RPM Development Partners, LLC. That area in question was reduced by two-thirds by May 9th, but the plan remained to privatize part of the street and demolish much of the existing parkway, including the popular festival area.

The first concept drawings for the Pascalis project envisioned a Hotel and Conference Center at Newberry and Laurens,
and a vehicular drop-off occupying a portion of the the time, a vehicle space for but two-way traffic would remain.

The first concept drawings for the Pascalis project envisioned a Hotel and Conference Center at Newberry and Laurens, and a vehicular drop-off at the Hotel occupying a portion of the former street—-but with two-way traffic remaining.

The key justification for the gift of public property to a private developer was the city’s height ordinance. In a March 21, 2022, supporting memorandum, Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) Executive Director Tim O’Briant wrote:

“As the planning for Project Pascalis moved forward in its earliest stages, it was a primary goal that any redevelopment project not exceed the downtown building height limit of 55 feet. In order to accommodate that restriction while still providing sufficient space to create an economically viable project intended to provide a 100-key hotel, 100 multi -family residential units, a municipal conference center of 25,000 to 30,000 square feet, and a 400—car parking garage, providing additional horizontal area to the proposed footprint emerged as a potential solution.”

On September 29th two commissioners, Keith Wood and Chris Verenes, accused unnamed AMDC staff of deceiving them during the planning process, thus leading to violations of state Community Development laws. Tim O’Briant is one of only two listed AMDC staffers, the only staffer authorized to co-sign AMDC checks and negotiate with developers, and was the public face of Project Pascalis for nearly a year.

Though unproven, this well publicized allegation of staff deception has only been challenged by one council member. As such, the charge further undermines the original height argument for the Newberry Street ordinance. The argument that developers needed public space to accomodate the height ordinance was roundly ridiculed in public meetings. It suffered further harm with the disclosure of a May 2021 procurement document that made no mention of height issues and revealed it was the AMDC that pushed the privatization, and not the developer:

“The Aiken Municipal Development Commission holds contracts to purchase roughly 1.6 acres in the downtown and anticipates realigning the Newberry Street frontage in the project area to make an additional .5 acres available for the redevelopment.”

Citizens Park Proposed Lease and Artificial Turf

For the second time in two months, City Council will discuss a proposal for a public-private partnership with the Aiken Futbol Club. The proposal is being championed by PRT Director Jessica Campbell, who also led efforts this to raise recreation fees and close neighborhood parks.

During the referenced August 22, 2022 Council workshop, Campbell suggested a pathway to developing a “tournament worthy” soccer complex with lighted fields, additional restrooms and parking:

“She said they are looking at what they call CP3 which is about 17 acres of land. There is also land near Pine Log Road that could be used as well. Ms. Campbell stated Ms. Lester has some preliminary numbers for two fields of about$ 3. 5 million.” (Page 5, 8/22/22 Workshop Minutes)

According to the minutes, the Aiken Futbol Club has been in existence since 2017, and has organized successful, minor tournaments. The club’s Executive Director, Brad Boni, reportedly stated “if they had a dedicated soccer facility he felt they could bring a tournament to Aiken” involving up to 100 teams. Boni also stated the club has “some funds in the bank,” and some “donated land…restricted for recreational use.”

That property, donated for “tax purposes,” is a 48-acre parcel on Wire Road which, if the deed restriction were removed, “could be something (the club) could sell as commercial property or some type of development that would generate funds.” There was no discussion of rededicating the property to the City for recreational use or as an open space park in exchange for a lease arrangement at Citizens Park.

The proposal met with strong support from Council and no questions regarding the Club’s ability to financially assist the project—even though it is a matter of public record. Councilwoman Andrea Gregory even offered the prospect of artificial turf in place of the existing large grassy area:

“Councilwoman Gregory pointed out that if this is something that we believe in and something that we should proceed with, we need to consider artificial turf. In the long run it will be more economical. It will allow for more play and tournaments because grass gets worn down. It is a healthy price up front, but it pays off in the end.”

The area in red, known as CP3, is proposed for lease to a private soccer club and new soccer fields.

Official Response to Citizen Concerns

In his “Issues and Updates” memorandum, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh offered brief responses to five concerns raised by citizens during the new “public comment on nonagenda items” portion of meetings:

“a. Divesting parks-Staff will not bring that recommendation from the Master Plan to Council.

b. $ 2 fee for basketball-As has been the case since 1995, ” Fun Funds” have been available for all eligible youth which waives the fees.

c. Rescind Newberry Street ordinance-On for first reading this evening.

d . Broadcast water line flushing alerts on 4Aiken-Staff is looking at the best ways to communicate this information.

e. Old Public Safety Headquarters RFP-Council has not made a decision about the future of 251 Laurens St NW.”

Behind The Closed Door:

After meeting for 1.5 hours on October 10th to discuss legal issues pertaining to Project Pascalis, City Council will receive another round of advice:

“Specifically, City Council will receive a legal update and/or advice regarding a pending lawsuit, as well as to receive legal advice relating to Project Pascalis. “

This marks Council’s sixth closed door meeting regarding Project Pascalis since June 13, 2022. Throughout that period no council member has offered a single public comment pertaining to the project during a public meeting.

October 2022, Savannah River Site

How Safe were “Millions of Safe Hours?”

October 21, 2022 donaldmoniak Leave a comment

Offsite Insights 2022-3

by Don Moniak
October 21, 2022

A Savannah River Site (SRS) work place safety record may have ended this past August, shortly after an SRS contractor publicized the accomplishment.

On June 29, 2022 Savannah River Mission Completion’s (SRMC) public relations office issued a news release stating “Over the past 24 years and spanning three liquid waste contractors, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management’s (EM) construction team at the Savannah River Site (SRS) has achieved 35 million safe hours without injury resulting in a missed day of work.”

According to a September 18, 2022, Savannah River Site (SRS) Occurrence Report, the record could be over. On August 9, 2022, an SRMC construction carpenter tripped on a scaffold pole and fell on the asphalt. The injured worker was diagnosed by a nurse and doctor at the contractor’s onsite Health Services as having “a small abrasion to the left elbow and a right shoulder strain,” treated with an anitbiotic ointment and a bandaid, and was released for work.

At a follow up visit nine days later the worker complained of pain and discomfort in the injured shoulder, was referred to an offsite orthopedist, and diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff. A month after the accident, the carpenter underwent surgery to repair the right torn rotator cuff. On the day of the surgery, the accident finally made it into DOE’s Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS); which is designed to provide “timely notification to the DOE complex of events that could adversely affect: public or DOE worker health and safety, the environment, national security, DOE’s safeguards and security interests, functioning of DOE facilities, or the Department’s reputation.”

The accident raises questions about the site’s claim to 35 million hours without a lost day of work in the liquid radioactive waste management’s construction program; as well as safety claims made across the rest of the site. OSHA regulations regarding recordable injuries are filled with frequently asked questions and specific scenarios about what constitutes a lost day.

Companies constantly strive to reach accomplishments on paper that may not accurately reflect actual safety records. There is no shortage of stories involving injured workers being pressured and harassed to return to work. Whether there was pressure to return to work in this case is unknown. SRS officials at both the contractor’s and Department of Energy’s public affairs offices were asked (1) about this specific event and chose to ignore the inquiry.

What is known is that serious workplace injuries and accidents are more common at Savannah River Site than the polished record presented by public relations offices of both DOE and its contractors. A news release with an asterisk such as “only construction workers” can easily be misunderstood as “all workers” by a casual reader.

Just a few of the reportable accidents that met the reporting thresholds in the ORPS program during this calendar year include:

On January 27, 2022, a worker supporting “disassembly of a roofing support shoring tower” at a radioactive waste disposal site was struck by the tower frame, lost consciousness, and was transported to Augusta University Hospital. The diagnosis was a temporal bone fracture, a laceration requiring seven sutures, and a concussion. This accident within the liquid radioactive waste program occurred six months before the SRMC’s “35 Million Safe Hours” new release; casting further doubts on the validity of the claim.

On Friday July 22, 2022, a Savannah River Ecology Lab (SREL) researcher suffered a snakebite on the hand from a Copperhead while “attempting to retrieve a radio tracked gopher frog in a remote area.” The worker was transported to AU Medical Center and was treated for more than 48 hours.

Lessons Learned From Occurrence Report EM-SR–GOSR-GOSR-2022-0003

On September 8, 2022, “while performing valving inside of the contamination area for the Acid Recovery Unit, an operator tripped over a piece of plywood and fell backwards, resulting in a back injury.” A day later an X-ray showed a fractured vertebrae.

On September 26, 2022, a crane operator exited a 50-ton crane to evaluate the crane placement for an upcoming job. After exiting the crane, the 50-ton crane rolled into a dumpster, pushing the dumpster into a fence causing damage to the crane, dumpster, and fence. There were no injuries and no damage estimates.

On July 2 and 3, 2022, an evacuation occurred at Savannah River National Laboratory due to the failure of portable air compressors for radiological exhaust systems. The portable compressors were being used due to a cooling water outage. Replacement compressors failed seven times before a larger air compressor was employed.

This particular occurrence drew the attention of Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) representatives. In their July 8, 2022 weekly report , Resident Inspectors reported “poor (Technical Safety Requirements) administration and weaknesses in the abnormal event response;” and several several safety issues with the exhaust, ventilation, and fire systems.

The inspectors also found several oversights in the lab’s subsequent fact-finding investigation, particularly in the implementation of Limited Conditions of Operation (LCO). The Board reps wrote: “Most egregiously, the logbook indicated not completing two separate LCO required actions within the required completion time.” Defense Board representatives are often understated and seldom employ words like “egregious.”

The incident was entered into the ORPS notification system on July 14, 2022 and the final report, titled “Loss of Instrument Air and failure of associated radiological exhaust,” was not completed until September 21st. Eight corrective actions were noted, suggesting Board representatives properly recognized the seriousness of the incident and the muddled response to it before the lab did.

Corrective Actions for EM-SR–BSRA-SRNL-2022-0006

_________________

Footnotes

(1) The following email was sent to SRMC’s L. Ling and cc’ed to DOE’s Amy Boyette:

Mr. Ling,

In regard to the story about 35 million hours without a lost workday accident, was this record affected by this accident, EM-SR–SRMC-HTANK-2022-0005,

31. HQ Summary:

On August 9, 2022, construction carpenters were disassembling a containment hut in a barricaded work area near Tank 35. Laborers had placed scaffold poles in the storage rack just prior to the incident. During the work evolution, a construction carpenter tripped on a tube-lock scaffold pole that was extending outside of the storage rack and fell on the asphalt (same level fall). The worker was evaluated by a Savannah River Mission Completion Health Services nurse and a site medical physician. The initial diagnosis was a small abrasion to the left elbow and a right shoulder strain. For initial treatment, the abrasion to the left elbow was cleaned, and antibiotic ointment and a band aid was applied. The worker was discharged and returned to work. On August 18, the worker followed up at site medical, where they reported pain and discomfort in their right shoulder. The worker was subsequently referred to an offsite orthopedic physician. On August 23, Safety Reporting was notified that the employee was seen by an orthopedic physician and given prescription medication. A Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was scheduled, and the worker returned to work with instructions to use their right arm as tolerated. On August 30, the MRI results indicated the worker had a torn rotator cuff. On September 8, the worker had an outpatient arthroscopic procedure where the surgeon confirmed and repaired the right torn rotator cuff.

If not, how often have injuries later turned out to be worse than initially diagnosed? Was this worker pressured to return to work to avoid an OSHA recordable lost-day event?

This is also a final occurrence report. Can SRMC explain why there were no lessons learned?

There was no link to news release author Jim Beasley, so I was unable to ask him directly about this. Please forward if necessary.

Thank You,

Donald Moniak
Eureka Research, LLC
PO Box 112
Vaucluse, SC 29850
803-617-9736
contributor: aikenchronicles.com

(2) Savannah River Mission Completions Occurrence Reports for 2022.

Report Number	Subject/Title
1)	EM-SR–SRMC-FTANK-2022-0001	Failure of Tank 3 Purge Ventilation Fan
2)	EM-SR–SRMC-FTANK-2022-0002	Uncontrolled hazardous energy due to common neutrals L/T FTF-22-38
3)	EM-SR–SRMC-HTANK-2022-0001	Employee received mild shock while working in 707-H
4)	EM-SR–SRMC-HTANK-2022-0003	Tk 32 Thermocouple Failure
5)	EM-SR–SRMC-HTANK-2022-0004	Light Plant Trailer Tongue Failure
6)	EM-SR–SRMC-HTANK-2022-0005	Confirmed Rotator Cuff
7)	EM-SR–SRMC-HTANK-2022-0006	50 Ton Crane rolled into Dumpster at HY-1 Laydown Yard
8)	EM-SR–SRMC-SWPF-2022-0002	Pressure Relief Drain Plug Air Leak
9)	EM-SR–SRMC-SWPF-2022-0003	Inadvertent Switch Manipulation
10)	EM-SR–SRMC-SWPF-2022-0004	Failure to Administratively Enter Limiting Condition of Operation
11)	EM-SR–SRMC-SWPF-2022-0005	Pressure Transmitter Manifold Leak Prevents Surveillance Completion
12)	EM-SR–SRMC-WVIT-2022-0001	JIT-1140B Performance Degradation and is Inoperable while in Operation Mode
13)	EM-SR–SRMC-WVIT-2022-0002	DWPF Lab Personnel hit head on a Manipulator Arm
14)	EM-SR–SRMC-WVIT-2022-0003	PRFT to SRAT Transfer Interlock Due to Low Steam Flow
15)	EM-SR–SRMC-WVIT-2022-0004	Cell Cover Dropped While Moving With MPC Crane in DWPF
16)	EM-SR–SRMC-WVIT-2022-0005	DG200 Failure to Start During Surveillance Testing
17)	EM-SR–SRMC-WVIT-2022-0006	DG200 Inoperable when required
18)	EM-SR–SRMC-WVIT-2022-0007	Inadvertent Contact with Electrical Cord
19)	EM-SR–SRMC-WVIT-2022-0008	Local Control System (LCS) 500A Train Loss of Indications
20)	EM-SR–SRMC-WVIT-2022-0009	511-S Safety Grade Nitroge

Laws & Bylaws, October 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

“Portions Rescinded,” But No Cancellation.

October 15, 2022 donaldmoniak 6 Comments

A Project Pascalis Update: August 28 to October 15, 2022

The $100 million plus downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis is currently in a state of confusion—-not moving forward, but not cancelled. A recent legal affadavit filed by Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh stating the effort “is currently on hold and is not moving forward at this time,” and that only “key portions of Project Pascalis were rescinded” by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), has added to the confusion perpetuated by the AMDC since the withdrawal of a demolition application on June 29, 2022. One consistent feature of the city’s downtown redevelopment efforts remains a propensity for secrecy and nondisclosure.

As reported in A Project Pascalis Update, the following, in part, described the status of the project as of August 28, 2022:

The Master Development Agreement (MDA) necessary for any future work appears to be still in negotiation, and time is running short. On December 3, 2021, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) wrote: “ The initial Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) announced today gives the AMDC and RPM until no later than Summer 2022 to come to terms on a mutually beneficial Master Development Agreement.”
No such agreement has been announced, and the AMDC has not replied to a letter asking for the exact deadline date on the PSA, even though this date is not pertinent to the (Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al) lawsuit.

Post-August 28th Project Pascalis Update

August 29, 2022
Contract attorney Gary Pope, Jr billed the AMDC two hours for “call with James Wilson (counsel for RPM Development Partners, LLC) to discuss means to voluntarily conclude the contract.”

September 9, 2022
The Aiken Municipal Development Association (AMDC) met in closed-door executive session for three hours to accept legal advice pertaining to Project Pascalis litigation. At the end of the session, the following motion was made by AMDC Vice-Chair Chris Verenes:

“Mr Chairman, I make a motion that we stop Project Pascalis, that we declare the purported existing contract null and void, and thirdly we propose to either amend or cancel the redevelopment plan so we can follow South Carolina Community Development Law.”

During discussion, AMDC Treasurer David Jameson stated support for “additional due diligence,” and offered an amendment to “to continue this to the week of September 26th.” The amended motion was unanimously approved and the discussion was delayed until the week of September 26th. \

September 13, 2022
The Aiken Chronicles published What is the Status of the Pascalis Developers, featuring an unanswered September 9th letter from Donald Moniak to Raines Company President Grey Raines, asking:

“Has your firm withdrawn from Project Pascalis?
Is the purchase and sale agreement (PSA) with the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) null and void as a result of RPM Development Partners, LLC not reaching a final Master Development Agreement with the AMDC by the deadline specified in the PSA?
If so, does this account for the absence of Raines and RPM from filings (other than a notice of acceptance from yourself) in the July 5, 2022 Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit?”

September 14, 2022
In a letter sent by Federal Express, UPS, and email, Attorney James Myrick, representing RPM Development Partners, LLC, wrote to AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant that his client was terminating its Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with the AMDC. The agreement was first signed on December 6, 2021 and amended most recently on June 20, 2022. Myrick wrote:

“As you know, the Due Diligence Period for my client the Developer expires on September 15, 2022 pursuant to the Second Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement dated June 20, 2022. To date, the Commission has been unable to make the necessary progress on its performance under the Agreement, and we understand that the Commission is not able to proceed, for reasons other than any failure by Developer, including that the Commission intends to materially change the substantive components of the proposed Redevelopment Project as originally contemplated in the Agreement. As a result, most of the various Development Agreements contemplated under the Agreement have not been finalized or obtained. At this point it would not be possible for the Commission to complete the Closing as contemplated under the agreement and within the required time under the Agreement. For these reasons, Developer is forced to hereby exercise its rights to terminate the Agreement and to require reimbursement of Developer’s costs and expenses by the Commission.”

On the same day, in an interview with WJBF’s Shawn Cabbagestalk, AMDC Chairman Keith Wood chose not to reveal the fact that September 15th was the deadline date to finalize all agreements with RPM; and created the illusion that the decision would be made the week of September 26th.

“The whole process is to ensure we’re following the South Carolina redevelopment law. that’s the basis for the lawsuit that was filed on the fifth. So we’re trying to ensure that that process was followed, to the law. it is our intent.”
If the project was cancelled, “We’ll start the process over again. Which means that we’ll look at what’s going to be the scope of the new potential discussions we’re gonna have with developers and the process moving forward.”

September 16, 2022
The AMDC announced a meeting for September 29th with an agenda consisting of approving past meeting minutes and:

Executive Session—Meet with Attorney on Legal Matters Regarding Project Pascalis;
Possible Action from Executive Session Item or Items.

September 22, 2022
On behalf of the AMDC, contract attorney Gary Pope, Jr wrote to attorneys representing RPM and Raines Company

“We acknowledge and recognize Purchaser’s right to terminate the contract and obtain the return of the Earnest Money under § 4(a) of the Purchase and Sale Agreement.”

September 26, 2022
Aiken City Council reappointed Douglas Slaughter and Philip Merry to the Aiken Municipal Development Commission for an additional term of office. Both Slaughter and Merry were appointed in September 2020 and voted to approve all motions advancing Project Pascalis. The written record indicates that neither commissioner has objected to any aspect of the project.

September 28, 2022:
The former State Farm building at 121 Newberry St, SW, the only property in the Project Pascalis demolition zone not owned by the AMDC, was put up lease.

121 Newberry St SW. Top Photo: June 30, 2022. Bottom Photo: September 29, 2022. (Photos: Don Moniak)

September 29, 2022
Following a more than two hour closed door executive session, the six voting members of the AMDC unanimously approved a motion to:

“Declare the existing contract with the developer null and void, and cancel the Redevelopment Plan.”

Unlike the proposed motion on September 9, 2022, the final motion did not include “Stop Project Pascalis.”

Four of the AMDC Commissioners on September 29th. Not shown is David Jameson who attended by phone. (Photo byCaterina Miltenberger)

After the meeting was adjourned, AMDC Chair Keith Wood and Vice Chair Chris Verenes issued individual statements (1) blaming city “staff” for misleading the commission during the process; particularly in regards to the signing of the PSA on December 6, 2021. In his statement, Wood claimed:

“The AMDC was first notified of the detailed requirements of the Community Development Act by the staff and AMDC attorney in a meeting on June 23, 2022;”
Staff delayed publication of a Request for Proposals (RFP) until after a contract was signed with the developer;
“This included problems with the lack of transparency from the staff to the AMDC about events…from November 20, 2021, up to the meeting of June 23, 2022.”

Taking a more strident approach, Mr. Verenes alleged:

“A deliberate decision was made—-WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL…to delay running an ad for proposals until after we signed an agreement with a developer;”

At no time during the meeting did Commissioners divulge the contents of the September 14th and 22nd letters that terminated RPM’s role in the project, nor acknowledge the September 15, 2022 due diligence deadline in the PSA.

September 30, 2022
Attorneys for RPM Development Partners, LLC and Raines Company submitted a Motion to Dismiss their clients from the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit on the basis that the complaint was now moot, arguing:

“Defendant RPM Development Partners, LLC terminated its contract (on September 14, 2022) with the City of Aiken relating to Project Pascalis. See Affidavit of David Tart, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Accordingly, this issue is moot, and any judgment rendered by this Court will have no practical legal effect,” and
“None of the causes of action alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are directed against either RPM Development Partners, LLC or Raines Company, but instead pertain to the actions and decisions of other defendants named in this lawsuit.”

Also included in the filing was the referenced affadavit by Raines Company Managing Partner David Tart and two exhibits; the September 14th letter of termination and the September 22nd email from Gary Pope, Jr. acknowledging receipt of the termination letter and reimbursement of earnest money.

October 3, 2022]
The Aiken Standard first reported on the September 14, 2022 letter of termination. According to reporter Matt Christian, Keith Wood claimed:

“The commission had known since it met in early September that the agreement with RPM was null and void due to improprieties in the process of selecting a potential developer for the project.”

The Aiken Standard has not asked why this information was never publicly disclosed by city officials.

October 5-6, 2022
Despite the contract with RPM being cancelled, the AMDC and City of Aiken refused to release any additional records pertaining to Project Pascalis, stating it would “take a Judge’s order.” On October 6, 2022, Tim O’Briant confirmed the following conversation:

“The AMDC will not release any information pertaining to any agreements between the AMDC and RPM Development Partners until a deed is executed–even though there is no existing contracts and no proposed sale.” (2)

October 9, 2022
In a report by Matt Christian of the Aiken Standard, City Councilman Ed Girardeau reportedly offered the only dissenting view to the overall Council consensus that AMDC staff had misled the commission and that Mr. Wood and Mr. Verenes have provided open and honest accounts of the project failure:

“Aiken City Councilman Ed Girardeau said he didn’t disagree with the commission’s decision. He added the commission did not meet with the council before taking the vote to start over. He also said that he didn’t agree with Wood and Verenes that they had been mislead.”

October 13, 2022
In an affadavit filed in the cases of Johnson vs Gary Smith et al (3) and Cornelius vs Aiken City Council, Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh stated:

“this redevelopment plan is currently on hold and is not moving forward at this time;”
only “key portions of Project Pascalis were rescinded” by the AMDC;
Aiken City Council is “likely to rescind” the Newberry Street privatization ordinance approved by a 6-1 vote on May 9, 2022; and
he is “willing to answer questions from the court.”

From 10/13/2022 Affadavit of Stuart Bedenbaugh

October 15, 2022

Since September 29th, the AMDC has refused to answer questions (4) regarding the public communications lapse, such as:

Why was this information (about the terminated agreement) withheld from citizens by the AMDC and Mr. O’Briant’s office?
Why do citizens and local media have to monitor sccourts.org to learn about the operations of their local government as it pertains to downtown development and Project Pascalis?

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

Feature Photo: Former State Farm Office at 121 Newberry St, SW. An essential cornerstone property for the Pascalis project, it was proposed for demolition on June 24, 2022. The Demolition Application was withdrawn on June 29 for unexplained reasons. The building was purchased in March, 2021 by Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC (Agent and lead investory, Attorney Ray Massey) for $675,000. It is presently for lease for $1800/month.

The statements of Commissioners Wood and Verenes can be viewed at:
https://aikenchronicles.com/2022/10/12/the-project-pascalis-rfp/
Seen here is the email confirming the refusal of the AMDC to release public records pertaining to Project Pascalis.

3. For information pertaining to Project Pascalis lawsuits, see Footnote section of The Pascalis Attorneys at https://aikenchronicles.com/2022/08/13/the-pascalis-attorneys/

4. Seen here are questions posed to the AMDC on October 4, 2022:

Nature News, October 2022

About Those Joro Spiders

October 15, 2022 lwrendexter 5 Comments

Joro spiders are making headlines, but the sensational stories being spun about them have put our non-native spiders in the crosshairs, while leaving the average person confused about whether the Joro poses any risk to their gardens and pets.

The articles aren’t being written by experts and the titles foment fear with terms like ‘invasion,’ ‘take-over,’ ‘massive’ and ‘venomous.’ I found many errors — as well as outright fear-mongering — in my review. And those errors stick around: A gardener friend asked if I’d heard about “those Japanese spiders, parachuting down from the sky by the thousands.” When I told him I had, he confided in me, “I hear their bite is deadly.”

This isn’t true, but it makes for an exciting news segment. Another friend came to me proclaiming to have finally identified the large spider in her front yard as an invasive species. It turned out to be a native golden silk orb weaver.

A Forsyth County man set his house on fire trying to eradicate the perceived threat after being alarmed by sensationalist media coverage. (1) Clearly there’s just a lot of bad information out there.

Here’s a rundown of the facts:

The Joro (Trichonephila clavata) has already been in our area for at least 8 years, during which time they have settled in nicely side-by-side with our native species.
There’s no bite risk to humans or mammals. Their fangs are too small and weak to effectively pierce human skin, but even if they were to succeed, their venom is mild and has evolved to harm insects, not mammals.
While their babies do “balloon” as many spiders do, traveling in the breeze on strands of silk, adult Joros certainly do not parachute down in the thousands.
Their prey includes pests such as the invasive crop-damaging brown-marmorated stink bugs (which many spiders won’t touch), mosquitos and yellow jackets, making the outdoors a little more pleasant for all of us and helping farmers naturally control pests.

The news stories routinely confuse two different things: Invasive species that come in and cause major problems (think fire ants), and non-native species that find a comfortable place in their new ecosystem, and do not cause harm. Joros are non-native, but are not considered to be invasive.

Worse, still, some news stories post pictures of the wrong spiders. They confuse the Joro with similar-looking native species like the golden silk orb weaver, Trichonephila clavipes, or with other native black and yellow species like the writing/garden spider, Argiope aurantia. The truth is, most of us would have trouble telling the difference between these spiders. IDs are best left to the experts.

Why is it difficult to ID the Joro? The Joro and the native golden silk orb weaver both spin webs that are gold in color. Both are large spiders that have very large webs that become noticeable in fall. Both are primarily yellow and black, with yellow and black striped legs and a yellow body with a red or burgundy spot on their underside, and a bright yellow mottled pattern on their back. But both species have variations in colors as well!

Is it really a Joro Spider?

Can you tell which of these are Trichonephila sp.? Can you tell which are non-native Joro spiders, Trichonephila clavata and which are the native golden silk orb weaver, Trichonephila clavipes? I’ve been talking with my spouse about the misinformation on Joro spiders for months now, and he still wasn’t able to identify the spiders in these photos with confidence. I’ll put the answers at the bottom of the article for anyone who wants to try their hand at identifying our native species versus the non-native Joro.

What do the experts say?

Will Hudson, a University of Georgia extension entomologist, explained, “People shouldn’t be frightened of the spider at all, and in the event they ever cross your path, admire them,” he said. “They are really cool, and they are beautiful. You can go over and admire it, you can get as close as you want to get a really good picture with your cell phone… They’re just spectacular.”

Hudson says he’s held them numerous times, and his grandchildren even hold them. “They’re completely harmless.”(4)

Nancy Hinkle, another UGA entomologist adds “Joro spiders present us with excellent opportunities to suppress pests naturally, without chemicals.” She is trying to convince people that “having large spiders and their webs around is a good thing.” (5)

Nancy Hinkle, UGA entomologist, handling a Joro spider. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FA4XtgwX0AQNzDm.jpg

Entomologist Linda Raynor, who specializes in behavioral ecology and the evolution of sociality in spiders at Cornell University, says “There is no evidence that this spider presents any sort of an ecological risk or risk to people or pets of being bitten. The only way you get bitten by orb weavers is if you put your fingers in their faces, and even then, it is rare.” (6)

Richard Hoebeke was the first to positively identify a Joro spider in northern Georgia in 2014. This past year he said, “I think people need to make peace with Joros and accept the spiders because they are not going anywhere.” (5)

The Rule of Thumb

Here’s the moral of the story: If you see one of these spiders, take a moment to enjoy and marvel at the colors, the beautiful architecture of its web, the wonderful role this creature plays in keeping the balance of insects in check. Don’t like spiders? No problem! Leave them alone, and they’ll return the favor. No need to kill them.

(1)https://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/badge-bar/hall-firefighters-extinguish-house-fire-south-gainesville/

(2) Joro Spiders: What You Need to Know – Alabama Cooperative Extension System

(3) Learn – Invasive & Non-Native Species (U.S. National Park Service)

(4)Scared of the palm-sized Joro spider? What to know about the ballooning, ‘beautiful spiders’

(5)Palm-sized, invasive spiders are spinning golden webs across Georgia in ‘extreme numbers’

(6)Nothing to fear as ‘stunningly beautiful’ Joro spider treks north | Cornell Chronicle

Photo ID:
1. Non-native Joro (Trichenophila clavata)
https://news.uga.edu/joro-spiders-likely-to-spread-beyond-georgia/

2. Native Writing spider (Argiope aurantia)
https://www.taringa.net/+imagenes/la-telarana-mas-curiosa-del-mundo_12vx71

3. Native Golden Silk Orb Weaver (Trichenophila clavipes)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/antmans.hill

4. Native Writing spider (Argiope aurantia)
https://bugguide.net/node/view/924138/bgimage

5. Native Golden Silk Orb Weaver (Trichenophila clavipes)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/antmans.hill

6. Non-native Joro (Trichenophila clavata)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/antmans.hill