Category Archives: Farmers Market – Williamsburg St Project

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.

August 2024, City Government, City Parks and Recreation, Development Issues, Editorials, Farmers Market - Williamsburg St Project, Trees and Deforestation

The “Atrocious” Farmers Market Project, Revisited

5 Comments

A Two-Part Update on The Farmers Market Fiasco

One year ago the failure of the City of Aiken’s Farmers Market streetscape redevelopment project contributed to the defeat of then-incumbent Mayor Rick Osbon, and a further erosion of trust in city government that had lingered in the wake of Project Pascalis.

The project was envisioned as a remake of that part of the Williamsburg Street Parkway surrounding the Market area, and as such was misleadingly called the Williamsburg Street Project.  But only a rough concept plan, and not the details, was ever publicly divulged; the thin veneer of public involvement included Community Development Committee meetings that lacked a quorum of members.

The project is funded in part by a $990,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Because bidding for the project came in nearly half a million dollars over budget, the City allocated an additional $400,000 from SRS plutonium settlement funds to compensate for the shortfall.

The HUD loan application included language implying the vibrancy of the Farmers Market and surrounding commercial establishments—-the popular Little Howie’s restaurant and Charlie’s Fish Market—-was a thing of the past, stating:

“This section of Williamsburg St has become distressed over the years with vacant, dilapidated commercial buildings and housing. This area once flourished with patrons shopping at the Aiken Farmer’s Market, a restaurant and a fish market on the same block of Williamsburg St.”

The project began just after Memorial Day weekend when ten trees, six of which qualified as “grand trees,” that provided a shaded, comfortable experience at the Market were cut down. Enough public outcry ensued to compel a “pause” the project, a delay that continues to this day.  

One result of the public outcry was an internal investigation ordered by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh that led to a new, internal policy stating that city projects must be subjected to the same processes as the City requires for private developers.

The policy falls well short of that goal. City projects are still only subject to the level of staff review required for private developments, but not to the level of public scrutiny that private developers must face. The gauntlet for developers includes a public hearing by the City of Aiken Planning Commission, followed by two public hearings before City Council—and developments within the historic and Old Aiken Overlay districts must also endure a hearing before the Design Review Board.

As a result of this minimalist approach to reforming the review process for city projects, not a single public hearing has yet to be held on the actual plan or set of plans for the Farmers Market Parkway project and the adjacent Jackson Petroleum property that is also owned by the City.

Figure 1; clockwise from upper left: 1a. Looking South towards Farmers Market (2022); 1b. Conceptual view of post-redevelopment Farmers Market; 1c. September 2022 sign announcing redevelopment project—with no contact information or visuals; 1d. Two of the three remaining trees after ~70 pct of the tree canopy was removed from the Market area. The oak tree in the center of the photo stood in the shelter of larger dominant oak trees and is now more vulnerable to wind and other adverse weather.

Part 1: The Internal Policy

by Don Moniak
August 13, 2024

On May 30, 2023, a City of Aiken contractor began the process of redeveloping the block of the Williamsburg Street Parkway that surrounds the Aiken County Farmers Market (Figure 1a).  

The City’s plan was to convert a well-shaded, park-like stand of trees into a generic landscape of clay pavers, irrigated lawns, and a high-density stand of nursery-stock trees and shrubs (Figure 1b).

The project began with the removal of three-quarters of the trees on the block—nearly seventy percent of the towering tree canopy that once shaded and cooled denizens of the Market was gone in a day. 

Ten of thirteen trees along the Parkway were removed, including a specimen of a rare Slash Pine subspecies that was part of the local Arboretum collection. Two of the three remaining trees were visibly weaker specimens that are now more susceptible to adverse weather after the dominant trees that sheltered them were removed (Figure 1d).

Two weeks later, during a City Council meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh would tell the citizens of Aiken that the beginning of the $1.4 million streetscape project—which was already $0.5 million over budget—should have been a “joyous occasion.” 

Yet, unlike most “joyous occasions,” the start of work was never accompanied by a ribbon-cutting ceremony. Nor was it ever publicly announced. 

Despite an Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) sign (Figure 1c), implanted eight months earlier, that announced an impending redevelopment project, very few people had been made aware of the impending wholesale remake of the Parkway—from a natural parklike setting to a generic, cookie-cutter landscape.

Unlike most signage advertising a promising future, the landscape vision was absent from the AMDC sign. People were informed that something was coming, but not of what was to come. 

Despite the project vision being two years old, and City Council having given the green light to procuring funding for a redevelopment project, not a single public hearing or even informational meeting revealing the details had ever been held. That remains true to this day. 

While the project was not a secret, it was probably the least publicized of impending joyous occasions in the local history of million dollar projects. Whereas Project Pascalis was rightfully criticized for its fragmented and often minimalist approach to the citizen input process, the Farmers Market project was almost entirely devoid of public involvement—it was almost purely a city staff concoction that moved forward with an indirect nod from City Council, while ignoring Farmers Market customers and vendors as well as the broader taxpaying public. 

The combined lack of public notice and citizen involvement was a strong contributing cause of the outcry to the hacking of the Farmers Market Parkway’s stand of trees. Antonyms of joy ranging from anger and anguish to discontent, exasperation, and vexation characterized the dominant emotions of the following weeks. 

Those sentiments incited a maelstrom at City Hall. One employee described the external uproar as requiring “triage.” (Figure 2)

Figure 2: Reaction of one city employee to public outrage at the near-total removal of the stand of trees surrounding Farmers Market.

On June 2nd, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh wrote to his various responsible department heads—planning, economic development, public works, engineering and utilities—-to order an investigation into the “subpar” project beginning and an internal policy to prevent “such an atrocious” event from ever happening again (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Memorandum from City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh to five of his department heads, representing Economic Development (Tim O’Briant), Planning (Marya Moultrie), Engineering and Utilities (Michael Przbylowicz), Public Works (Lex Kirkland), and Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (Jessica Cambpbell). Documents obtained via FOIA show that, in the aftermath of the “atrocious” event, there was very little internal finger-pointing, a good deal of blame avoidance, and a near absence of genuine root cause analysis-=-one that would have found that the internal review process was not the problem, the problem was the complete lack of external review in the form of public review and input of the Farmers Market project—and to a similar extent all city projects.


When Mr. Bedenbaugh addressed the situation at the next City Council meeting on June 12th, his words were more constrained, stating that he shared the community’s “indignation.”

Council members followed suit, with Mayor Rick Osbon stating the “trees should not have been cut down;” although in reality the trees that were cut down, with the exception of one smaller maple in the midcanopy cut for utilities access, were the exact trees that the year-old plan identified for cutting and removal.

But for some reason, Bedenbaugh did not disclose his strong and succinct memo that called for a new internal policy. Instead, he described any internal review as a “staff matter;” while stating “the review process for our (city) projects must conform to the same process as a private developer.”

The Internal Project Review determined that “it has not been common practice for city projects to be processed through the typical development review process that commercial developments are required to complete. Consensus was that all future City projects must undergo this same review process.” 

The end result was an internal policy (Figure 4) that mirrored the internal review findings; one that mandates the City follow the same procedures on City projects as it requires of developers on private projects; and also placed more oversight power with the City Manager’s office.

Figure 4: New Internal Policy for City Projects. (Click to enlarge).

However, the “do our projects like we require developers to do theirs” policy has one glaring omission—the presence of public input and hearings. The new policy only mandates internal staff review akin to that of private developments.

Private developers have to go above and beyond mere staff review—they are subjected to a more rigorous public review process that involves at least three public hearings—one before the semi-autonomous Planning Commission, and two before City Council. In some instances the Design Review Board requires a hearing.

While most commercial developments sail through the public review process, without some citizen scrutiny every development would get a much easier pass.

In the past 18 months, one residential development (Henderson Downs) did not even make it past the Planning Commission level; two others (Mayfield Drive Estates and Sundy Street Apartments) stalled while compromises were made with residents of older, well-established neighborhoods; Parker’s Kitchen at Whiskey Road died during the second public hearing before City Council; and the 
Silver Bluff Overlay District plan died after City Council removed it from the agenda—a direct result of strong discontent from county residents who want less, not more, intrusion by the City into the unincorporated county. 

Finally, the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, after receiving one approval by both City Council and County Council, withered on the development vine after City Council opted to avoid further controversy; with County Council citing a very real sewage capacity shortfall for their decision. 

In short, citizen involvement and review at multiple levels is a proven remedy for stifling misguided projects or for making other developments more compatible with existing neighborhoods. 

Why does the City of Aiken refuse to allow the same process for projects on public property, especially after the Farmer’s Market fiasco? 

The Farmer’s Market streetscape project is hardly the only one on City property to avoid public scrutiny in the form of Public Hearings, with the City opting instead for a fragmented and incomplete system of scattered meetings at best. Other examples include the proposed Greenway Trail, Smith-Hazel Park redevelopment, Generations Park expansion, management of the Brunswick Tract, and the fate of the City’s remaining property in The Alley.

When will the City of Aiken relearn that area residents are there to contribute in meaningful ways that make developments of all stripes more compatible with their surroundings; or in the worst of circumstances there to provide the gut check to just say no to a bad idea? 

Seeking early and meaningful citizen input and scrutiny on city projects and new major ordinances has to be a better idea than cutting and removing public involvement like a grand Farmer’s Market tree.


Coming Next: Farmer’s Market Project: What Went Wrong?

References:

FOIA #235-2024 files: New Internal Policy for city projects and 5-page Internal Review of Williamsburg Street Project.

Bibliography of Past Stories

Farmer’s Market Revitilization Project Underway was the first area news story on the near-total removal of the Farmer’s Market stand of trees. .

The Williamsburg 10 provided the precise details of the near-total removal of the Farmer’s Market stand of trees.

Four Well Lit Trees and Plan A and Amended Plan A examined what the real plan was versus the perceived plans.

Poised for the Next Phase of the Farmers Market-Williamsburg Streeet Demolition exposed how city officials were poised to continue the project with little to no public notice.

Whose Project is it Again…Bueller highlighted the bureaucratic football of blame surrounding the controversy.

Divesting of Parks and Open Space, from September 2022, detailed how the City of Aiken was preparing to close neighborhood parks and possibly privatize Farmers Market.

Farmers Market - Williamsburg St Project, July 2023

Whose Project is it again? …. Bueller?

5 Comments

By Kelly Cornelius

I attended the June 26th, 2023 City Council meeting to put my questions and concerns regarding the Williamsburg Street tree massacre, or “mistake” as the City has termed it, on the record. I wondered: Just whose project is it?

Below is the transcript from that meeting.

Transcript

Kelly Cornelius: My name is Kelly Cornelius. I came down this evening with concerns about the Williamsburg Street tree massacre as well. I was able to find a report on the AMDC’s website that is still up, and it’s called the Williamsburg final draft report, and that was done by a company named Origin Landscape Architecture. I looked them up. They were dissolved, like the AMDC, but they were dissolved earlier on February 3, 2022. I also read the award letter that was posted on the Facebook page of the Aiken Chronicles, and it was dated February 15, 2023, and it awarded $1.4 million to Quality Plus services, and it referenced a December 15, 2022 due date for the proposal. Now if you recall what was going on. December 15, 2022 the AMDC was down to a party of two because on December 14, I believe, is when Mr. Jameson put in his resignation.

The AMDC did not have a quorum when the proposal due date came about, so my question is, who awarded Quality Plus Services this project? Because we didn’t have an AMDC, and you all would not have your first meeting as the AMDC until March 13, 2023. When was the streetscape project transferred, and who was it transferred to? Because I’ve seen on the most recent Aiken corporation agenda there were two agenda items regarding the project. One was an update… there was just two things on there. So are they in control of it now? Are you in control of it now? Who is in control of the project. ?  

[silence] 

Kelly Cornelius: Anybody? …….Bueller? 

Stuart Bedenbaugh: We’ve always been

Rick Osborn:  Kelly…. [then, spoken under breath to Bedenbaugh, “I’m going to answer this”) We’re in control of it 

Kelly Cornelius: So it’s the City?

Stuart Bedenbaugh: And has been from the start. It’s been a CBDG project. It has never been an AMDC project, the project you reference. What, um… So anyway… it is….

Kelly Cornelius: On the sign it says AMDC out there, but now there’s a piece of tape over it. 

Stuart Bedenbaugh: Yes, I think that was related to the Jackson Petroleum property at Williamsburg, on the southeastern corner of that  — that was the AMDC component. The Parkway project that you referenced earlier has always been a CDBG project. The public hearing I referenced several minutes ago that was March 26, 2021 was held under the auspices of the Community Development Block Grant program,  so I wanna make that clear. It was not an AMDC project. That is just not correct.

Kelly Cornelius: So that report found on their website is not associated with this project at all?

Stuart Bedenbaugh: I don’t have the report in front of me, and I can’t answer that. I just don’t know. I mean, if you had reached out to me ahead of time I could have that answer. I will look and report that in the next issues an updates memo. 

Kelly Cornelius: I agree with what Ms. Lance said, I think it should be stopped until everybody is clear on this. 

Later, $100,000K worth of invoices were found from Cranston Engineering with checks attached for the Williamsburg Streetscape Improvements paid for by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission on their financials binder page.

Exhibit A:
Photo of first bill for $32K
Photo of last bill found on the AMDC Financials Binder

Notice that the Bid Phase (highlighted) in the contract amount column, below, is the only one not paid for. That bid process seems to have started after the AMDC was left without a quorum, as evidenced by the email below obtained in a recent FOIA request.

A review of a recent article in the Aiken Chronicles revealed this piece of the puzzle, which is a March 9th, 2023 invoice from Cranston for the same project showing the Bid Phase paid. While the invoice is addressed to the AMDC, it is now paid by the City of Aiken. The invoice also has the same project number as the AMDC paid bills.

Follow-up

Unable to find the March 26th, 2021 minutes referenced by City Manager Bedenbaugh, I emailed him on July 17th, 2023 asking him to provide a copy of them as well as requesting an explanation on the AMDC funding of the design portion of this project. So far no response has been received on my inquiry.

There is reference, however, in a 5/09/2022 City Council agenda CBDG Committee update to the loan being released for the Williamsburg St project, which stated “work is already in progress with consultants.”

So if this is strictly a City project why did the AMDC sign the checks for the design portion? Recall failed the Project Pascalis was funded by the City’s “Parkway” Bond but it was still an AMDC project.

To Review

Here is what we already knew before finding the cancelled AMDC checks:

a) A plan for the Williamsburg St Redevelopment Project was and is on the now dissolved AMDC’s website. This plan can be viewed here.

b) The sign at the scene of the tree massacres on Williamsburg St had an AMDC logo on it which later was taped over.

The City has since officially put the Williamsburg Streetscape project on pause, and, in this interview, Mr. Bedenbaugh was unwilling to point fingers as he took one one for the “team.”

In the wake of the past year’s losses, which include $9.6M for downtown properties encompassing a historic hotel that continues to rot, the loss of Public Trust and now the loss of some of our Tree City’s beloved parkway trees, it seems someone on this team should be held accountable. Why are citizens still having to ask the hard questions while officials refuse to do so?

___________________

Additional links

Farmers Market - Williamsburg St Project, July 2023

June 26, 2023 Citizen Statement to City Council

4 Comments

By Laura Lance

A Microphone Malfunction

A vigilant Aiken citizen brought something to my attention on July 5. Specifically, they said that the June 26, 2023 statement I made in the City Council meeting could not be heard in the video — nor was the customary meeting transcript provided with the video. As a result, the public statements that I and other citizens made in the June 26th meeting were like the proverbial trees that fall in the forest.

Meeting attendees had, of course, been told of the malfunction during the meeting. There was a narrower-than-usual range within the microphone that would catch a person’s voice. This prompted me to speak directly into the mike and to also project my voice, just like I used to do back in my theater days with the Aiken Community Playhouse, sans microphones. My voice, my statement in the June 26th meeting was clearly heard by the attendees in the back of the room, just not by home viewers of the City’s video.

My statement is published here for the record. Also provided here is the City of Aiken’s organizational chart, a copy of which I provided for the record during this same meeting.

June 26 Statement to City Council
By Laura Lance

In the June 12th meeting, I asked how the City intends to respond to the request made by the Aiken County Homeless Coalition in the May 22 work session. This organization asked for no money. Just for the City to amend the minimum square footage requirements to allow for the construction of tiny homes as part of a small, highly regulated, fenced village that would provide temporary shelter while these people receive the necessary services to get back on their feet. 

You have the raw materials necessary to make a decision. All that’s left is the political will do do the right thing. Cities across the country have seen enough success with these villages, when done correctly, that they went on to build more. Additional villages could be built in New Ellenton and Horse Creek Valley, but that doesn’t negate the need for such a resource for homeless people in Aiken. The ideal place is on the northside in walking distance of a grocery store and the the Clyburn Center for Primary Care. The land exists. What a tiny effort it would take on the part of the City and its partners in business to not only do the right thing, but to take it one step further and provide this hard-working organization the 2 acres of land they need to build this village. 

Next, I’d like to address pubic hearings. City Council has repeatedly been requested to hold public hearings on the Demo 200 program that has been demolishing houses in Aiken’s historic northside neightborhoods. You were asked by written letter on March 17th of this year. You were asked again on April 3rd in a published letter titled, “Mr. Mayor, Answer Our Letter.” You were asked again during a Demo 200 tour in early May. You were asked again in a May 22 City Council meeting. We’ve tried everything but carrier pigeon. Still no public hearing.

Mr. Bedenbaugh, I wrote you on June 21 and asked, “What procedures do citizens need to undertake to get a public hearing on the Farmers Market/Williamsburg Park development? Please advise.”

You answered:

“The public has opportunity to speak at City Council meetings during the ‘Nonagenda Items’ portion of the meeting.”

Since when are major redevelopment projects relegated to non-agenda status? Call me old fashioned, but the discussion on this $2 million parkway project and the larger project to follow is worthy of better than I can impart in 3 minutes. 

Today, we have before us yet another major redevelopment project drawn behind closed doors and which — until the very public destruction of 10 trees —  existed in near total secrecy; a project poised to transform what was a lovely, natural Aiken parkway into a costly, water-wasting, pesticide-intensive, light polluting, cookie-cutter, parkway that looks like something you could see in a thousand cities across the map. 

The failure of the City and the Aiken Municipal Development Commission to hold public hearings at key stages of this project potentially puts the City in defiance of municipal law.

What I am asking tonight, on behalf of the citizens of Aiken, is that a pause be put on further work on the Williamsburg Street project until it can be brought into clear compliance with municipal law and, importantly, public hearings can be held to true up the course of `this project. 

`

City Government, Development Issues, Farmers Market - Williamsburg St Project, June 2023

Plan A and Amended Plan A: Seventy Percent Tree Removal Was the Plan.

3 Comments

An Update to “Four Well Lit Trees”

by Don Moniak

June 26, 2023

This past week some new information about the Farmer’s Market/Williamsburg Street redevelopment project (1) emerged:

  • There are two versions of one plan. Both are dated October 19, 2023. The amended version reduced the scope of work. The changes are undated.
  • The number of trees cut at the end of May 2023 were planned to be cut. The only change on the ground is one additional leave tree was cut. 
  • One of the trees cut was part of the city’s widespread Arboretum, a difficult to obtain Carribean Pine (Pinus elliotii var. Densa) specimen. What was an impressive complete collection of Southern U.S. pine species is now incomplete.
  • The lighting plan is being deferred to another future contract. 
  • The future ownership of Farmer’s Market remains unknown. 

One Plan, Two Versions

There is and was a single, October 19, 2022, Cranston Engineering Project Permit Plan. The ‘second plan” is actually an amended plan with several tasks removed (see example below) from the contract or altered. Most notable is the removal of the electrical lighting and installation plan, which itself was added to the bid package on December 13, 2022.

Additional issues include:

  • The date of the streetscape revisions are unknown, but probably originated prior to the February 15, 2023 bid award to Quality Plus Services. The bid award letter states there was a “revised quote of $1,483,465.55;” which was more than $400,000 over-budget.
  • All the documents remain buried and hard to access (2) in the City’s document repository. The original 10/19/22 plan (3) has been removed and replaced by a more user friendly version of the final “approved plan” which is still dated 10/19/22. 
  • Cranston Engineering’s $23,000 Conceptual  Design has still not been publicly  disclosed. 
One of the changes to the 10/19/22 Project Permit Plan.


Tree Protection Plan Unchanged

The Project Permit Plan contains a “Tree Protection Plan.” That plan remained the same in the revision. Both versions feature an ‘Existing Conditions” drawing showing thirteen trees, by species and diameter, in the redevelopment area.

Both versions of the Tree Protection Plan (below) show the same four trees to be left. No mistakes were made. The nine trees designated to be cut in the original and the amended plan were cut and removed.

One additional tree designated as a leave tree, a 14-inch diameter Red Maple was also cut and removed due to it being along a planned irrigation line, leaving a total of three remaining trees.

The end result was a loss of 80 percent of the canopy cover and shade in the area around the market itself, and a thirty three percent loss within the two-acre project area. Not including the 42-inch oak remaining in the southern half of the parkway, the loss of shade is closer to sixty percent. (4)

The other significant aspect is the loss of all young trees in very good condition.

Two Tree Protection Plans with slightly different drawings but same plan. The tree in the middle was cut, leaving the two trees to the north (right) and the tree to the south ( left).

Arboretum Specimen Removed

Among the trees removed was a fourteen inch diameter Caribbean Pine—also known as South Florida Slash Pine—(Pinus elliotii var. Densa). The tree was planted twenty years ago by Bob McCartney of Woodlanders Nursery. The tree was part of the widespread city Arboretum composed of native trees and shrubs and rare specimens from many foreign nations; all planted and cultivated over the past forty years by Woodlanders.

McCartney told WRDW-News of Augusta: “‘I was very upset that it was done because we had specimens of every pine species native to the southern United States already in our collection.’”

Unfortunately, the combination of the tree being identified merely as a “14 inch Pine” on the Existing Conditions page, and a failure to notify Woodlanders (or anyone else) of the plan to remove any trees, led to the removal of the unusual and probably irreplaceable specimen, leaving an incomplete southern pine collection. (5)

Lighting Plan Deferred

Nearly all of the lighting plan that included four-sided illumination of the remaining trees is deferred for another contract. The lighting plan (below) states “no electrical work to be included in this contract, except for conduit.” A future contract would be needed to complete the lighting plan.

Therefore the plan is still open to debate. A lightning plan that includes illumination of remaining veteran trees was made with no consideration for the effects of on wildlife. Artificial lighting has negative effects on the foraging and nesting habits of birds. The cosmetic design element is unnecessary—particularly in light of the substantial cost overruns that have already plagued the project.

Tree Illumination Plan aspect removed from contract.



The Future Ownership and Operation of Farmer’s Market

As reported in “Divesting of Parks and Open Space,” the Farmer’s Market was on a list of city park properties targeted for possible divestment.

The list is within a Parks, Recreation, and Tourism report titled “City of Aiken Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Need Assessment and Strategic Plan,”

The plan, which was adopted by a City Council resolution on August 8, 2022, recommended: “Consider divesting of some neighborhood parks and facilities.” The candidates included most of the neighborhood parks in Northeast Aiken and Farmer’s Market.

After some public outcry over the plan, in October 2022 City Council verbally committed to not closing any existing parks—but did not strike the recommendation from the report and did not address Farmer’s Market. It is still official policy that parks could still be closed and Farmer’s Market could still face “divestment.”

Farmer’s Market did not come up in the conversation. The market is currently managed by the same Parks and Recreation Department that sought to close or sell parks.

What divestment of Farmer’s Market could mean is privatization—contracting with a private entity to manage and operate the facility. City Council has been mute on this possibility.

The Farmer’s Market redevelopment plan includes construction of single family homes on private property to the west of the market; and apartments and retail space on the city-owned Jackson Petroleum property—unless it is discovered to be too contaminated for any residential development. The combined effect of a privatized Farmer’s Market with an upscale housing and retail development (see below) on existing vendors has yet to be evaluated.

The apartments and retail aspect of the concept plan from 2021 for Farmer’s Market/Willamsburg Street redevelopment. The origin of the hills in the background is unknown.
Another strange aspect of the plan is that brick pavers will replace the existing grassy area north of the market, while a grassy area will replace a parking area on the south side of the market.


Footnotes

(1) An abbreviated timeline of the Farmer’s Market/Williamsburg Street Redevelopment Project

March 2021: Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) purchased three parcels for $175,000.  The properties on the east side of Williamsburg Street across from Farmer’s market are collectively referred to as the Jackson Petroleum property

May 2021: AMDC released Concept Plan by Origin Landscape Architecture. The AMDC described the Concept Plan as “aspirational,” and not final. The plan envisioned apartments and retail on the Jackson Petroleum property, new single family homes on the The report was not a redevelopment plan as required by the Community Development Act. 

2021-2023; Environmental investigations by Terracon; which delay pursuing the entire AMDC side of the project.

September 5, 2022. Large signs with no contact information announcing an upcoming AMDC redevelopment project are installed.



October 2022: Final Design completed by Cranston Engineering.

November 17, 2022; Pre-bid conference held.

February 12. 2023. $1.4 million contract awarded to Quality Plus Services.

May 29, 2023; Work begins.

(2) The plans are found within the procurement section of the city’s document repository. To reach them;

  1. Go to the repository page.
  2. Click the home button
  3. Scroll to the bottom to ‘website.”
  4. Click procurement
  5. Click bids
  6. Click archived bids
  7. Find “E&U. Williamsburg Street” in a long list of ten years of archived contracts.

(3) Whether the city archived the original is unknown. A file was created prior to publication of “Four Well Lit Trees” but is 63 mb and difficult to share at this time.

(4) Listing of trees removed and left.


(5) The Caribbean Pine/South Florida Slash Pine was also misidentified in the city’s tree inventory as a Longleaf Pine.