This past Friday, March 27, 2025, the South Carolina Administrative Law Court issued a ruling in favor of the City of Aiken in the business license tax dispute between Ed Woltz, Holly Woltz, and their real estate company S & C Properties LLC. (The case did not involve Ed Woltz in his capacity as an Aiken City Council member.)
Three background stories leading up to this ruling are as follows:
Ed Woltz’s Business License Citation, which reported on the legal dispute process from a criminal citation in November 2021, to an appeal to Aiken City Council in September 2022.
A Hearing on Business License Taxes, which focused on a June 2023 administrative hearing before the City of Aiken’s designated hearing officer.
Nineteen months after an appeal was filed with the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC) by Ed Woltz, Holly Woltz, and S & C Properties LLC (Petitioners) regarding a business license tax dispute with the City of Aiken, the ALC has finally issued a ruling in favor of the City, and ordered the Petitioners to obtain a business license for all of their real estate rental businesses and pay any back taxes (1) for the years 2017-2021.
The appeal hinged on two contentions by the Petitioners regarding the application of the business license tax Ordinance to rental properties; with the central issue being the differences between owners of a single residential rental property vs owners of multiple residential rental properties. (2)
First, they argued that the Ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous “because it fails to define the point at which rental of residential properties constitutes doing business;” and that the breakpoint of property ownership was itself arbitrary.
Secondly, they argued that the City’s “failure to treat them similarly to owners of a single residential property amounts to an (unconstitutional) equal protection violation;” that the City’s policy of allowing one tax-free rental was inconsistent with the actual Ordinance; which draws no distinction between number of rentals.
The City’s defense was that the Ordinance provides for administrative discretion by its Business License Official in the enforcement of the Ordinance. In this case, the City maintains a policy dating to the 1980’s to not mandate a business license for owners of a single residential rental property. The policy is based on the assumption that a single rental, such as an inherited property, does not constitute a business activity.
On the issue of “vagueness,” the Court simply ruled that any reasonable person can discern that a landlord owning more than ten properties, as the Petitioners do, constitutes a business.
On the issue of unequal treatment, the Court applied a more complex “rational basis test” to determine whether the distinction between single-home landlords and multiple-home landlords was rational.
The Court decided that the City’s approach is rational, and that there was no disparate, or unequal, treatment because the Petitioners fell within a different business class than single home landlords. The Court concluded that the Petitioners did not meet the burden of proof showing disparate treatment because a “rational basis review of a government classification does not look for disparate treatment vis-a-vis other classes created by the government’s distinction; rather it examines whether there is a disparate treatment within the designated class.”
More simply put, because there was no disparate treatment within the multiple-homes landlord class, there was no overall disparate treatment and therefore no constitutional violations.
Footnotes
(1) According to court documents, the Petitioners paid $13,086.56 in back taxes and penalties in September 2022, but did so under protest. The next day, an appeal was filed, as allowed by City statute, with the Aiken City Council.
It is unclear whether additional payments are due, but since the Court did state that the Petitioners did not challenge the total tax levied by the City it appears the bill is satisfied.
(2) The appeal also included arguments regarding the levying of business license taxes on properties outside of the City’s jurisdiction. Those contentions went unaddressed in the ruling.
Progress continues on the $20 million downtown “Mixed Use” facility, which the City of Aiken hopes the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) will eventually occupy as a “workforce development facility.” However, two years after the project was announced with great fanfare, there is still no lease agreement with SRNL’s contractor, Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA); deep federal budget cuts could further threaten the viability of any new leases for federal contractors.
Recently, SRNL/BSRA officials were dissuaded by the Department of Energy (DOE) from attending the facility groundbreaking, and were ordered by DOE to have the SRNL logo removed from project signage. Is the City of Aiken creeping towards a misappropriation of the $20 million by constructing what is essentially a “spec” building on behalf of its nonprofit “partner” organization the Aiken Corporation?
Also, at that time, the primary envisioned use for the property was that of workforce development (2) for the SRNL contractor, Battelle Savannah River Site (BSRA).
The great fanfare during the project introduction left no doubt about that intent. The top two floors were to be office space, and the ground floor was to be primarily a showcase for the lab, a place for public interactions where scientific poster sessions would adorn the halls.
That vision faded sometime in the summer of 2023 when the prospect of a long-term lease grew fainter(3). In September 2023, the Aiken Corporation, with an unofficial acquiescence by Aiken City Council, chose to locate a three-story, 36,000-square-foot facility on its own property on Newberry Street–that property was acquired by ACorp in July 2022 for $650,000. A series of emails from the September to November, 2023, time period also showed city officials discussing a building without any committed tenant; one that could be used for an entity other than SRNL.
With the Newberry Street decision made, the City and Aiken Corporation collaborated on moving forward with the design contract. First, the Aiken Corporation hired the architectural firm of Cheatham, Fletcher, and Scott to conduct design work. Then, the City took over the project and hired Cheatham as the City’s contractor. In other words, the City utilized an unofficial, indirect procurement process to hire an architectural firm for a contract exceeding one million dollars.
Between the time of the award of the design contract and the award of a construction contract to the firm of Allen-Batchelor Construction, the City bought the property for $752,230.23; a sum that included two years of interest on the Aiken Corporation loan and city and county taxes for 2022 and 2023. (Figure 1)
Figure 1: Breakdown of costs for purchase of one-acre of property on Newberry Street NW for the purpose of the SRNL/“Mixed Use” Building.
The Groundbreaking
On January 27, 2025, just over two years to the day of the project announcement, a ceremonial groundbreaking took place.
Missing from the groundbreaking festivities were representatives from SRNL. Also missing from the project sign was the SRNL logo. This was not the original intent of SRNL officials, who accepted an invitation to the function on January 10th, 2025. On January 20th, though, an event occurred which changed everything.
That event– a new Presidential administration came into power, and suddenly, federal leases were being canceled, funds were being frozen, and talk of selling off federal buildings was in the air.
On January 24th, SRNL Assistant Director Sharon Mara wrote to city officials that, per DOE guidance, the lab would not have a presence that day (Figure 2); and per DOE order, the lab logo could not adorn the project sign (Figure 3). However, lease discussions could continue.
Figure 2: Notification from Sharon Marra to City officials regarding SRNL absence from the groundbreaking ceremony. (click to enlarge)Figure 3: Notification from Sharon Marra to have SRNL logo removed from the project sign. (click to enlarge)
This is not the first indication that future SRNL occupation of the facility would range from possible to precarious, or maybe not at all. As reported in One-Year Lease after One-Year Lease, as of January 2024, the SRNL contractor only had DOE permission to negotiate one-year leases, not longer-term five or even ten-year leases. In fact, by the time the facility is finished, BSRA’s first five-year contract is due to expire. Although a five-year renewal is expected, a renegotiated lower contract price is quite possible.
Still, eighteen months has passed since the siting decision was made, and there is still no lease or even a memorandum of understanding between the parties. The likelihood of DOE/SRNL permitting BSRA to enter into any new lease agreement may now possibly be fading away.
Who could occupy the facility if SRNL/BSRA does not, and who would own the building?
On February 26, 2024, Aiken City Council approved a “Framework Agreement” for future agreements with the Aiken Corporation regarding the project. This agreement required ACorp to relinquish ownership if SRNL/BSRA was not a tenant. (Pages 202-204)
The anticipated path forward was that the City of Aiken would purchase the Newberry Street property from Aiken Corporation, use the remainder of the $20 million Plutonium Settlement allocation to construct the facility, and then sell the facility and property to a yet-to-be-identified, for-profit subsidiary of the not-for-profit Aiken Corporation. (4)
When the facility is completed, the City will transfer ownership “pursuant to the terms of a subsequent Purchase Sale Agreement…which will, among other terms, specify a deed restriction providing for the return of the subject property to the City should the (Aiken Corporation) no longer desire to own or lease the building to an appropriate tenant.” (emphasis added).
The intent of this latter clause, which appears to dictate that Aiken Corporation will own the building only if SRNL is a tenant, was indicated in City Manager Bedenbaugh’s supporting memorandum that the Aiken Corporation’s “to-be-formed entity will lease the building to SRNL.” (emphasis added.)
At the February 26th meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh was asked to define “appropriate tenant.” He did so in a manner that implied some wiggle room, stating:
“There is kind of a clawback, should that not follow through or the mission changes.”
He noted that he would define an appropriate tenant as “based on a mission that is similar to what is stated in the opening paragraph of the National Lab or its successor agency.”
On January 27, 2025, Aiken City Council approved a new agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with Aiken Corporation and its newly formed, for-profit property management company called Aiken Ventures LLC. Just as ACorp’s for-profit property management company, LED Inc., manages the downtown Amentum Building, Aiken Ventures LLC will manage the “Mixed Use” building on behalf of Aiken Corporation and the City of Aiken.
Missing from the January 27th MOU is the clawback provision and any reference to a deed restriction. Instead of Aiken Corporation ownership being contingent upon SRNL’s contractor being a tenant, the language in this agreement appears to provide a loophole:
“Ventures is expected to enter into a lease with SRNL, whereby SRNL will lease the second and third floors of the property on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between Ventures and SRNL.”
There is no contingency plan in the case of the SRNL contractor being unable to obtain DOE permission to obtain a lease.
The original purpose of the $20 million was not to build a private “mixed-use” office building. It was not to further subsidize the City of Aiken nor its private partner the Aiken Corporation with an annual flow of federal funds that could be better put to better use.
The legislative intent was to construct “off-site infrastructure” for an institution whose operating contractor includes the state’s university system as part of the Battelle Savannah River Alliance. The only justification for awarding plutonium settlement funds for use by one of the defendant’s institutions, SRNL, was that the state is committed to an investment in the Battelle-led alliance from its university system. That commitment specifically included a workforce development facility.
If the City of Aiken truly wants the SRNL contractor to have a downtown presence, it would be wise to begin considering the option of deeding the property to one or all three of the State’s three major universities.
Footnotes
(1) The original choice by SRNL was the City’s parking lot property next to the City of Aiken Municipal Building, where a two-story garage topped by an office building was visualized in September 2022.
(2). As reported in The SRNL Project Was a Component of Project Pascalis, the facility constitutes the first stage in a much larger, $120 million state-funded program to Battelle Savannah River Alliance for SRNL workforce development.
(3) As reported in One-Year Lease After One-Year Lease, the prospect of a long-term lease became bleak by January 2024. To this day, there is still no signed lease or even a Memorandum of Understanding between SRNL, Aiken Corporation, and City of Aiken.
(4) The February 2024 “Framework Agreements” states that to pay for the facility, the City “will provide financing to Corporation, which it anticipates providing on an interest-free basis.” Thus, much of the rent proceeds will be used to pay for a building that was already paid for with the plutonium funds.
This provision is absent in the January 2025 MOU, which states that the City will deed the property to Aiken Corporation’s for profit Aiken Ventures LLC; and that if the property is put on the market the City has the right to buy it back for $1.
How Aiken County permitted development activities that led to road closures.
by Don Moniak January 11, 2024
On two occasions in the Fall of 2024 , the University Parkway (Hwy 118) portion of Aiken’s bypass was temporarily closed at its junction with Vaucluse Road. While the official reason for the closures provided by government officials was flooding, a better term would be “debris flow,” as heavy soil erosion caused by major rain events led to the road being covered with sandy sediments that posed an unacceptable risk to public safety.
The first incident occurred after approximately 8.0 inches of steady rain over a 24-hour period— Hurricane Helene and the “predecessor” rain event—fell from September 26-27. The second incident was on November 6th following close to five inches of rain in about a 12-hour period. According to a Department of Transportation report, the cause November 6th closure resulted from sediments that accompanied a stormwater detention pond failure that was under construction.
In both instances, the sandy debris originated from a housing construction site known as Highland Bluffs, where a subdivision of 110 single-family homes is under development, and 116 townhome-style apartments are scheduled for a second phase of development (Figure 1). The developer, Highland Bluff LLC, is operating on a relatively steep slope that was has been described by Aiken County Administrator Brian Sanders at a County Council meeting as “precarious.”
In April 2023, the Aiken County Planning Commission gave the developer preliminary plat approval for the single-family residences. The resolution any identified issues, including any that might be raised by the county’s engineering staff, was required before construction could begin. All of those contingencies were resolved by April 2024.
Construction began in May 2024. The heavily forested site was clearcut except for 10 to 15-foot forested buffers along the two roads bounding the site preparation work. Intensive grading ensued to prepare the site for high density housing.
According to County inspection reports*, problems quickly emerged in May and June that plagued the site all summer. The chronic issues included torn silt fences, an entrance that needed constant maintenance to prevent sediment from leaving the site, and soil erosion via strong winds resulting in sediments “leaving the disturbed area.” There were also “drink bottles/trash found in several areas” in May and “all over” the site in July.
In July, the county inspector reported (Figure 2) that lack of maintenance was allowing sediment to leave the site via swales (drainage ditches) in the site right of way entrances; and that the detention pond that was under construction was lacking riprap (stones placed on the shoreline to prevent erosion), a skimmer (to drain only the topmost, sediment-free layer of water), and slope stabilization. In addition, the catch basins were holding sediment, but sediment was also “leaving the site via a culvert.”
Figure 2: Portion of August 2024 county inspection report.
After a wet July that included at least one rain event of more than three inches, the inspector added that, “many slopes will need to be repaired. Issues along Vaucluse Road need to be addressed.”
By the end of a drier August, water erosion was again replaced by wind erosion that settled fine dust on neighboring properties, the culvert at the entrance was missing riprap, the detention pond still lacked erosion controls, and “both construction entrances (were) allowing sediment to leave site via swales in ROW.”
Figure 3: Before After Figure 4: September 28, 2024 road closureLooking east at Road Closure with sediment across road
Not a single local media source accurately cited the reason for the closure, leaving the misimpression that it was floodwaters that caused the closures, not a debris flow.
At Aiken City Council’s November 12th meeting, Aiken Public Safety Chief Charles Barranco confirmed the latter road closure stemmed from “debris from the property above the road.”
At County Council’s November 19th meeting, the issue was raised during the public comment period. County Administrator Brian Sanders also confirmed the closures stemmed from sediments originating from the Highland Bluffs construction site, and cited the detention pond construction as the primary source.
In response to subsequent questions raised by Council members PK Hightower and Kelly Mobley, Sanders also stated that “they have a right to develop their property,” and that “they are doing everything right.”
However, the County’s inspection records suggest that the County’s own guidelines legal guidelines for site preparation were arguably not met in this instance.
According to Section 19.5-23 of the County Code, these measures include the use of “temporary plant cover, mulching, and/or structures to control runoff…during the period of development or land use change,” disturbing the smallest area practical at any one time, retaining natural vegetation and saving topsoil, and provisions to “effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused by the changed soil and surface conditions; i.e. diversion ditches, grassed or surfaced water-ways and outlets, enlarged and protected drainage channels.
This is not the first new subdivision in North Aiken to suffer from excessive soil erosion during the site preparation phase that impacted neighbors and affected public safety. Similar dust storms originating from the Portrait Hills subdivision in early 2023–permitted by the City of Aiken—covered neighboring homes and businesses with a fine layer of gritty dust and sand and created visibility issues on Highway 19 North.
The lesson learned is that the promises made by local government to concerned neighbors regarding new developments should certainly be treated by concerned citizens with a dose of healthy skepticism.
The City of Aiken’s business license tax dispute involving an Aiken business that is co-owned by an Aiken City Council member is now entering its fourth year. The core issue is the constitutionality of a municipality taxing property outside of its jurisdiction. The case is scheduled to be heard by the State of South Carolina’s Administrative Law Court on January 21, 2025. Since the case involves a complex, uniform business license tax Ordinance, the administrative court judge’s ruling could affect municipalities across the state.
As of October 31, 2024, the City’s legal fees for the case have exceeded $80,000.
The case of City of Aiken vs Edward Woltz began in November 2021, when Aiken resident and businessman Ed Woltz was quietly cited by the City with a business license violation for failure to pay business license taxes on some of his rental properties that are situated both inside and outside of the City of Aiken, and for not possessing a business license for those properties. Mr. Woltz is an Aiken City Councilman who had been reelected to a second term just a few weeks prior to the citation. His current term ends this year.
In early September 2022, an agreement was reached to dismiss the criminal case in return for Mr. Woltz paying the back taxes. A tax reassessment for 2018 through 2022 was sent to Mr. Woltz and payment of $11,477 was made, but under protest.
The Aiken law firm of McCants and Nance was then hired to represent Mr. Woltz, his wife and business partner Holly Woltz, and their rental company S&C properties in an appeal of the assessment. At that point, the case became Edward Woltz, Holley Woltz and S&C Properties vs City of Aiken. Subsequently, the Columbia law firm of Robinson, Gray, Stepp, & Laffitte, LLC was hired to represent the City.
A hearing on the case was delayed until June 8, 2023, when a day of testimony was conducted in Aiken City Council chambers. Two weeks later, Aiken City Council’s designated hearing officer Kelly Ziers issued a ruling in favor of the city.
The Zier ruling stipulated that the Woltzes and S&C Properties owed $13,086 for four years of back taxes and penalties for ten properties within Aiken city limits, and an undisclosed amount for the more than dozen properties located outside of the city that are not subject to a business license tax by any other government body. Zier also ruled that because the Woltzes operated their rental business from within the City, the City was within its rights to collect taxes on all properties, both inside and outside of the city limits.
The appeal reiterated two of the arguments advanced during the city’s hearing; that property owners with only one residential rental unit are not required to obtain a business license, and that many of the Woltz’ rental properties are located outside of the City of Aiken—thus “taxing real properties which are not located within its jurisdiction or its lawful right to do so.”
In response, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending that the Administrative Law Division lacks jurisdiction because the Woltzes were challenging the constitutionality of portions of the business license tax Ordinance.
The Motion to Dismiss was denied in December 2023, with Chief Administrative Law Judge Ralph King Anderson III writing, in part, that
“This court has subject matter jurisdiction in this court…Petitioners do not argue the Ordinance is unconstitutional in all of its applications; rather, they argue it is unconstitutional as applied to their particular circumstances as owners of more than one rental property in, and outside of, the City of Aiken.”
In other words, the administrative court ruled that it can hear challenges on the parts of the Ordinance applicable to the Woltzes case, though not the entire Ordinance since most of it does not directly pertain to the case.
Since the denial of the Motion to Dismiss, the contested case hearing date has been pushed back three times, the most recent due to Hurricane Helene. It is presently scheduled for January 21-22, 2025.
According to invoices obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, the City of Aiken has paid more than $80,000 in legal fees to the Columbia law firm of Robinson, Gray, Stepp, & Laffitte, LLC. between September 1, 2022 and October 1, 2024
Nearly one quarter of the fees, $15,760.20, was charged during the month of June 2023 (Figure 1), when the first hearing was held. A nearly equal amount was spent preparing and defending the City’s Motion to Dismiss at the end of 2023. At this rate, the case will likely cost the city more than $100,000 for a case involving just a fraction of that amount in disputed rental properties back taxes.
Figure 1: Portions of the June 2023 invoice, the most expensive month for the city in the appeals case.
Footnote:
* Robinson, Gray, Stepp, and Latiffe monthly invoice amounts and hours billed for the Woltz business license appeal, for period of September 1, 2022 through October 1, 2024. Data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.
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.”
“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).
“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).
