Category Archives: Pascalis 2023 – SRNL Lab

City Government, Editorials, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab, Savannah River Site, September 2023

Gathering on the Rooftop Terrace

4 Comments

The downtown “Mixed Use” building feasibility report: Weak cost estimates, data free analysis, and continued use of public relations criteria in site selection. Is this a VIP Entertainment Center or a Workplace Development Center? And where is the lab?

by Don Moniak
September 14, 2023

The long overdue downtown Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) office building project (1) draft feasibility study was released this week, just two days prior to the project’s first “public input session” in seven months. Nine months in the making, the underwhelming report has the hallmarks of a few people casually sitting around an office one afternoon generating a list of evaluation criteria and project pros and cons.

The report was released just two months after great uncertainty over SRNL’s role in, and commitment to, the project emerged. The draft feasibility study does little to quell that uncertainty, at different points referring to a “proposed office tenant,” “prospective tenant,” or “future tenant.”

The acronym SRNL is actually absent from the report, replaced by the vague category of “Mixed-Use” that was first adopted four months ago.

“Progress Report On: Aiken Corporation Mixed Use Feasibility Study,” begins with this historically inaccurate claim:

“At the time (late 2022), the Aiken Corporation was attempting to attract a $20 million investment in the form of a grant from the PU Settlement Fund from the South Carolina General Assembly.” (2)

As reported in Off-Site Infrastructure and Three Missing Pages, the historical reality is very different:

  • The now defunct Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) courted SRNL officials for the first half of 2022, in anticipation of a $20 million allocation for which the AMDC itself had originally lobbied. 
  • The $20 million for “SRS/National Laboratory Offsite Infrastructure” was allocated in mid-2022 by the General Assembly. 
  • The AMDC and  SRNL had agreed to a proposed, never-disclosed location by June 2022.
  • Aiken Corporation’s late 2022 involvement consisted of being contacted by the City of Aiken  “with the goal of having the Developer (Aiken Corporation)  engage various experts to perform certain services.” 
  • The City of Aiken requested the $20 million in project funds in January 2023. 
  • The City of Aiken did not approve its $250,000, no-bid “pre-development” contract with the Aiken Corporation until March 13, 2023. At this time, the Aiken Corporation remains a “pre-development” contractor.

    With that kind of pat-oneself-on-the-back opening, profound insights should be unexpected, and the report does not disappoint.

    A Convenient Cost Estimate

    Among the underwhelming findings is a “rough order of magnitude cost estimate” of precisely $20 million and zero cents ($20,000,000.00). The breakdown of costs also remains nearly identical to the City’s January 2023 estimate, with two notable exceptions:
  • The construction cost estimate for a 36,000 square foot building are $1.2 million higher than for a 45,000 square foot building. 
  • Contingency cost estimates are reduced from nearly 15% ($2.7 million) to only five percent ($1.0 million).

    Deficiencies and Inconsistencies

    The study purports to have evaluated five locations for locating the facility. The cost options are identical for each option.

    At least one notable deficiency exists for each alternative, and, looked at across the board, inconsistency reigns: 

  • The former Public Safety building on North Laurens Street, which is a two-minute walk from the business district, and directly across from the very busy downtown Post Office, is considered to have “limited pedestrian activity.” 
  • The Chesterfield Street option adjacent to the new Municipal Building is said to have “no opportunity for green space,” despite being across the street from one of Aiken’s revered tree-lined Parkways.
  • The Newberry Street option, located on vacant lots purchased by Aiken Corporation in July, 2022,  has as a negative “adjacent to existing residential uses,” although the same can be said of every site but the Pascalis properties. 
  • At the Pascalis properties site on Richland Avenue, a “Courtyard/Plaza (that) adds green space,” is identified as a benefit, although the area in question is the small dead-end alley between the McGhee Building and Warneke Cleaners.
  • The Old Hospital site at 828 Richland Avenue, which has the most existing green space, received no credit for that green space. Ironically, the project’s main authors, McMillan Pazden and Smith (MPS), was the design firm hired by WTC Investments in 2019 to help with a failed effort to redevelop that property. MPS, which had no qualms about demolishing and clearcutting the entirety of the 828 Richland Avenue property four years ago, has since taken a liking to the mature trees there and does not identify the absence of demolition requirements as a site advantage. (3)

    Corporate Entertainment Criteria or Workforce Development Criteria?

    Key criteria identical to those leading to the original Pascalis properties siting decision, none of which are cost-related, appear to continue to disproportionately drive the current evaluation. These criteria are best summarized as “visibility” and “accessibility to downtown.”

    During the January 23, 2023, State of the City Address where the project announcement was made, SRNL Director Dr. Victor Majidi emphasized that visibility was “most important:”

    “Most importantly this building is the community face of the laboratory…This  building…brings the Savannah River National Laboratory into the heart of the Aiken community.”

    During a subsequent February 6th public forum (the only one to date), MPS moderator K.J. Jacobs described the site selection process:

    “The national lab folks were very interested in a site with a high degree of visibility…they wanted to be at sort of the Main and Main Street location in Aiken so that they could have maximum visibility. They want to be a part of the community. They want their folks to be able to leverage walking downtown easily and being able to go eat in a restaurant.

    Walkability was important and and their interest in having access to amenities in downtown…the other part of that is the Amentum theater and ideally having close proximity to that. Just like Newberry Hall, there’s no point going and creating a bunch of catering facilities if you have the opportunity to leverage existing relationships next door.

    So those (criteria) were the framework around the decision to focus on this site. As you all know the City of Aiken controls this site so putting that criteria together with this site has led us to this conversation.” 

    These non-cost factors of walkability, visibility, and accessibility remain driving factors for site selection, and the two obvious throw-in alternatives, the Old Hospital and former Public Safety Building sites, both received negative reviews for these non-cost criteria.

    Visibility is obviously a public relations factor. DOE contracts contain a standard provision titled “Community Commitment,” which can be summed up as “maintain a positive image” and “win hearts and minds.” The looming presence of a seemingly benign science laboratory office headquarters in downtown Aiken will certainly help provide a positive filter to offset the glare of expanded nuclear weapons materials production at the Savannah River Site, as well as the fact that the heavily contaminated 310 square-mile area will remain off-limits to public use for the foreseeable future.

    The inherent cynicism of the other two non-cost criteria—walkability and accessiblity—is symbolized by one feature in the “Conceptual Building Floor Plans: the third floor’s “Covered Terrace.”

    This rooftop terrace concept was first identified in the scope of work in the Aiken Corporation’s March 13, 2023 contract:

    “There is a desire for a rooftop gathering and event space.”

    A common refrain justifying the “nearby amenities and dining” argument is that the lab is just wanting to treat its workers well.

    This workplace environment chorus is a ruse. The Department of Energy no longer even provides a cafeteria for well over one-thousand lab employees at its worn down, seventy-year old lab complex. Many employees remain in mobile offices, as if they are working on a temporary construction site.

    The idea that DOE/SRNL and its operating contractor Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA) might be locating fewer than ten percent of the lab’s workforce amidst the amenities of downtown Aiken as a means of workplace betterment is comical on its face.

    The desire for nearby amenities and a rooftop gathering place clearly have a more utilitarian purpose: wowing visiting University system dignitaries, colleagues from other National Laboratories, technology transfer partners, and any other number of professional and political luminaries. Meetings following a long day of nuclear nonproliferation training or nuclear weapon-parts simulations can end with a trip to unwind on the rooftop terrace or a walk to the nearest fine dining establishment. The opportunities for photo-ops that will further enhance the image of the lab and thus SRS will be plentiful.

    By all indications to date, the SRNL offsite office complex building is being designed more for a combination of public relations, image enhancement, and an entertainment center for DOE’s corporate contractors, and much less for the more tedious task of workforce development. Thus, $20 million of plutonium settlement funds resulting from the Department of Energy’s bureaucratic incompetence and misleading promises is likely being put to the cabinet agency’s use to enhance its own image and those of its nuclear weapons production and cleanup contractors.

    That is, if DOE/SNRL is even interested.

Conceptual Plan for Third Floor of the “Mixed Use” Building. “Covered Terrace” is to the right.
“Mixed Use Facility” Site Alternatives. Walking Distance is from Laurens Street and Richland Avenue. This approach discounts the presence of shops and restaurants on North Laurens and West Richland, as well as proximity of Old County Hospital Site to Rose Hill Estate. This map contains the only site selection data set in the report, an indication that “walkability” is more important than cost.

Footnotes

(1). During the January 23, 2023 State of the City address, Aiken City Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem Ed Woltz announced a proposal to construct a $20 million “Workforce Development Center” on behalf of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) in downtown Aiken.

Project funding is from the $20 million allocation from the State of South Carolina’s 2020 settlement with our federal government, commonly referred to as plutonium settlement.

The proposed location was on properties obtained by the now defunct Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) for the purpose of the $100 million plus downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis. There was no discussion of alternative sites.

Project History from November 2022 to May 2023

The full timeline of known events since the cancellation of Project Pascalis on September 29, 2022 is as follows: 

December 9, 2022. AMDC Chairman Keith Wood and Chris Verenes resigned in protest due to the failure of City Council to meet with them regarding the causes of the Project Pascalis failure.  

December 12, 2022. Aiken City Council met in closed-door Executive Session to discuss: 

  • “Potential purchase of real property located in downtown Aiken.”
  • “A proposed contractual arrangement to lease property in downtown Aiken.  

In regard to the latter topic, City Council was discussing, and probably negotiating for, rental of property owned by the AMDC and not the city. 

Mayor Rick Osbon recused himself because the “discussion might involve one of his direct competitors.” (Warneke Cleaners is the competitor, and the property it leases is part of the SNRL project). 

Attendees included Chamber of Commerce President and AMDC commissioner David Jameson, attorneys Daniel Plyler and Gary Smith, Tim O’Briant, Buzz Rich, SRNL Director Dr. Vahid Majidi, and SRNL Assistant Director Sharon Marra. 

December 14, 2022. David Jameson resigned  from the AMDC, citing South Carolina’s simple Community Development Law as the root cause of the Pascalis project failure. 

January 9, 2023: City Council held another closed-door Executive Session involving the same property purchase and lease arrangements at the December 12, 2022, Executive Session. Absent from list of attendees is SRNL’s leadership and Buzz Rich. 

The same day, at the regular City Council meeting, Council “continued” a motion to establish itself as the governing body of the AMDC. 

January 17, 2023. Despite the expressed wishes of all but two citizens to dissolve the AMDC, City Council unanimously voted to appoint itself as governing body of the AMDC; in order to transfer AMDC properties and assets to the City of Aiken. 

January 25, 2023: The SRNL lab project is announced at the “State of the City” jamboree. With Mayor Osbon continuing to recuse himself, Mayor Pro-Tem Ed Woltz described the project in identical terms as the December 9th Aiken Corporation/MPS agreement, and stated: “This is not a done deal.” (Cou

SRNL Director Majidi also addressed the crowd and assured them that no chemical or radiological operations would take place; but also described the facility as a “nonproliferation training center.” According to the SRNL website, this aspect of its mission involves U.S. intelligence agencies. (His transcribed comments are in footnote 2 here.)

January 28, 2023:  The City of Aiken announced it would hold a public forum. No mention of the Aiken Corporation was in the announcement. 

February 6, 2023:  The “City of Aiken Public Input Session” was held at the African American center. Aiken Corporation CEO Buzz Rich opened the session and described it as “focus meeting.”  MPS “Principal” K.J. Jacobs moderated the meeting, which he later described as a “listening session.” No mention was made of the existing agreement between Aiken Corporation and MPS. 

Present in the audience, but not taking part in the discussion or answering questions, was the SRNL leadership. SRNL has yet to engage with concerned citizens in a public forum, and has been absent from discussions involving the parking garage proposed as a key part of the lab project. 

The initial cost estimate of the parking garage, euphemistically referred to by city officials as a “structured parking solution,” is estimated to be $7 million. Two identified sources of funding are hospitality tax funds and plutonium settlement funds from the city’s $25 million share of the plutonium settlement allocated for “Downtown and Northside Redevelopment.”

The garage was not a part of the February 6th discussion. 

In addition to the statements mentioned in the body of this article, Mr. Jacobs also provided an email address for comments and promised to establish a website to chronicle “appropriate” comments. The latter is also a requirement in the March 13th contract. The email addressed failed to work for five days, and the website has yet to appear.

February 8, 2023: The Aiken Corporation approved two items: 

a. As reported in The Agenda Setting Aiken Corporation, signed an agreement with the City of Aiken to share in the cost of hiring McMillan, Pazdan & Smith Architecture.” 

b. The hiring of attorney Tracy Green at a fee of $400 per hour to “look at the current by-laws, Freedom of Information Act issues, and other legal matters.” Other legal matters includes negotiating leases with “third parties” such as SNRL. (The by-laws were updated and approved in May 2023).

City Council members Lessie Price and Gail Diggs were listed as present in the attendee list, acting as “ex-officio” voting members of the Aiken Corporation. 

March 7, 2023: The Design Review Board (DRB) held a public “work session” to discuss the design of a ~$7 million parking garage, termed a “structured parking solution,” proposed to accommodate the influx of lab employees. During the pre-decisional meeting citizen comments were prohibited—reducing them to spectators while developers and city officials were participants.

March 8, 2023: The Aiken Corporation approved a motion to “to accept the proposed Professional Services Agreement with the City of Aiken.” City Councilwoman Lessie Price was listed as an attendee. 

March 13, 2023. Aiken City Council convened as the governing body of the AMDC. After the issue arose of potential conflicts of interest due to the status of the two Council members on the Aiken Corporation Executive Committee, Council as AMDC tabled the motion to transfer AMDC properties and assets to the City of Aiken. A decision was made instead for a Council public hearing to dissolve the AMDC as a means to transfer the properties and assets—-since dissolution would automatically trigger the transfer. 

Later, during its regular meeting, Aiken City Council approved the $250,000, no-bid professional services agreement with the Aiken Corporation; which was deemed “The Developer” in the contract. As already stated, the December 9, 2022 Aiken Corporation agreement with MPS was incorporated into the contract. 

Aiken City Council approved a contract for pre-development work on property the City of Aiken did not own, and which only controlled via its dual-role existence on the AMDC. 

March 27, 2023. Aiken City Council approved, on First Reading, the dissolution of the AMDC. Both Councilman Ed Woltz and Mayor Rick Osbon recused themselves from the discussion—due to Woltz’s ownership of land adjacent to AMDC properties, and Osbon’s “friendly competitor” Warneke Cleaners occupying part of the lab project property. 

After the issue of a potential conflict of interest involving that status of the two Council members on the Board of the Aiken Corporation, the two committed to resigning from the Board. Subsequently the motion passed unanimously on the First Reading. 

March 28, 2023: Councilmembers Lessie Price and Gail Diggs resigned from the Board of the Aiken Corporation. 

April 10, 2023. Aiken City Council deferred the Second Reading of the vote to dissolve the AMDC, with City Attorney Gary Smith stating he would request an informal opinion on the ethics issues regarding the 

April 13, 2023. Smith submitted his request, and added a request pertaining to Ed Woltz and Rick Osbon. 

April 27, 2023. The staff of the Ethics Commission issued its informal opinion, stating that no member of Council had to recuse themselves from the vote to dissolve the AMDC. 

In regard to the Council members of Aiken Corporation’s board, the informal opinion cited formal opinions of the Commission from 2000 and 2001 that exempted elected officials from conflict of interest laws if they serve as members of Boards of organizations which were created by, and exist at the discretion of, the elected officials’ governing body. In the absence of this exemption, the March 28th resignations would apply to any future votes. 

In regard to Mayor Osbon and Councilman Woltz, the staff’s informal opinion cited the lack of financial gain from dissolving the AMDC because vote to dissolve was not a direct vote to transfer AMDC properties and assets. 

Meanwhile, little discussion of the lab project has occurred. It might be held up by the failure of Council to transfer the properties to city control, and/or the identified closed-door meetings with “key stakeholders” is ongoing.  

Meanwhile, the date for the draft “feasibility study” schedule is now two weeks overdue. No website is up and running to share citizen comments. 


(2) The correct binomial for plutonium is Pu, not PU.

(3) McMillan, Pazden, and Smith’s 2019 conceptual plan for 828 Richland Avenue, W, the Old County Hospital. An apartment complex requiring removal of forest canopy was planned where the “Mixed-Use” lab facility is now proposed by Turner Development. (top building, from page 84 of the October 28, 2019 Aiken City Council meeting agenda information packet.)

MPS cited “Partially wooded site will require removal of mature trees” as a disadvantage for this Mixed-Use facility.




August 2023, City Government, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab, Security Issues

45,000 Square Feet Without a Tenant?

4 Comments

It’s in the Contract: How the Department of Energy Controls the Future of the Downtown Lab Project Through the SRNL Operating Contract.


by Don Moniak
August 8, 2023
Updated August 9, 2023

Introduction

In June 2022 the South Carolina Legislature finalized the allocation of $525 million from the State of South Carolina’s Savannah River Site (SRS) plutonium settlement with the federal government. Of the $169 million that came to Aiken County, $20 million was allocated for “Off-site Infrastructure Improvements for SRS/National Lab, including the Aiken Technology/Innovation Corridor.”

Aiken County received the $20 million in funds. Savannah River National Laboratory’s (SRNL) initial involvement was limited to site selection and planning, but it did not receive any funding. The funds would be transferred to the governmental jurisdiction within the county as chosen by SRNL. That government body would then be responsible for the design and construction of a “Workforce Development” facility for the lab’s use.

SRNL eventually selected a controversial downtown City of Aiken location, situated on four former Project Pascalis properties owned at the time by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC). When the site was announced, SRNL Director Dr. Vahid Majidi stated the most important factor was because “this building is the community face of the laboratory.”

As a result, the $20 million is now designated to the City of Aiken, whose request for the funds stated the project was for “construction of a workforce development center, shared event/exhibition space, and office space for the Savannah River National Laboratory.”

This site selection process took place in 2022 behind closed doors, with no public input and no public record. As reported in Three Missing Pages, the City then secretly chose the Aiken Corporation in November of 2022 to pursue a pre-development role—even though the properties were still owned and controlled by the AMDC.

The project went public in January 2023, and for five months it was presented, with great certainty for success, as a joint project between SRNL , the City of Aiken, and the Aiken Corporation. The city was to fund it, the Aiken Corporation was to prepare for development and later own and lease the facility, and SRNL was to provide design guidance and pay rent to the Aiken Corporation.

In the past month, the arrangement appears to have changed after the Department of Energy and the SRNL contractor issued a joint statement distancing themselves from the project. It is now characterized as a City of Aiken project, with SRNL mentioned as only a possible future tenant.

As it turns out, it was never SRNL’s decision to make. Rather, as administrator of SRNL’s operating contract, it is the Department of Energy that has final approval authority of the project location and other parameters.

Is the City of Aiken now planning to fund the design and construction of a 45,000-square-foot office building with no tenant, just months after requesting $20 million of plutonium funds specifically to construct a facility for the lab’s use?

A Dramatic but Subtle Change in Tone and Commitment

One month ago, the Department of Energy and Savannah River National Laboratory issued a statement indicating they are distancing themselves from the City of Aiken’s proposed $20-million-plus, 45,000 square foot, downtown “Workforce Development” office complex.

The statement was widely publicized when WFXG-FOX News of Augusta aired reporter Lauren Young’s July 12th story on the increasing controversy surrounding the SRNL project. (1). 

SRNL officials responded to Ms. Young’s request for comment by issuing an ambiguous, noncommittal, and eyebrow-raising prepared statement (below) denying an active role in, nor any commitment to, the $20 million plus project. Ms. Young’s report correctly stated that until now this had always been presented as a lab project.

Past Certainty of a Downtown Lab Project With SRNL Participation

The SRNL statement stands in vivid contrast to official expressions of optimism, certitude, and surety at the project’s debut announcement on January 23, 2023. This certainty continued until Mayor Rick Osbon’s June 9th advocacy column in the Aiken Standard; and two subsequent Aiken Standard op-eds by Aiken Corporation Board members Buzz Rich and Jason Rabun.

With the exception of the SRNL project being carefully rebranded as “a mixed-use facility” in May, the collaboration between the City, Aiken Corporation, and SRNL was not publicly in doubt until the mid-July news that SRNL is no longer directly involved. Statements of surety included:

  • “I think is a great one that will be one of those major win-wins the Mayor has mentioned…I am pleased to say that downtown Aiken has been selected as SRS’s overwhelming preference.” — Mayor Pro Tem Ed Woltz, January 23, 2023, State of the City address. (2)
  • ”But most  importantly this building is the community face of the laboratory…This  building…brings the Savannah River National Laboratory into the heart of the Aiken Community.” — SRNL Director Vahid Majidi, State of the City Address.(3)
  • “SRNL (BSRA) has agreed to negotiate an operating agreement under which the tenant will be responsible for proportional utility, maintenance, tax and insurance obligations for the portion of the facility exclusively occupied by the tenant.” — City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh in the SRS Settlement Request Form submitted to the South Carolina Joint Review Board via Aiken County Administrator Clay Killian.
  • “If the project were to proceed with the Lab, they will provide a concept plan of what they want.“  — Aiken City Councilwoman Andrea Gregory, March 13, 2023 City Council Meeting.
  • “The Savannah River Site is one of the largest employers in the region and will continue its commitment to the area with the new SRNL offices.” — Mayor Rick Osbon, Guest Column: “New mixed-use office building will deliver value for Aiken,” Aiken Standard, June 9, 2023. 
Dr. Majidi’s full speech is at Footnote #3. The story on the report is within this update.

The SRNL Operating Contract and DOE’s Veto Power

Following are five provisions from the SRNL operating contract to consider when trying to make sense of the Department of Energy/SRNL public statement distancing themselves from the project.

  1. Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) is a Department of Energy (DOE) institution that is currently operated under a contract with the Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA). As such, it is owned by the American taxpayers.

    The DOE/BSRA contract designates a Director as the “authorized supervisor for technical and administrative performance” for all of the lab’s work. The Director is “the primary point of contact between the SRNL Contractor and (DOE’s) Contract  Representative.” Dr. Majidi as the current director represents the contractor. (Section G-2003).

  2. DOE approves all public communications from its contractors:

    “All communications or releases of information to the public, the media, or Members of Congress prepared by the Contractor related to work performed under the contract shall be reviewed and approved by DOE prior to issuance. Therefore, the Contractor shall, at least seven calendar days prior to the planned issue date, submit a draft copy to the Contracting Officer of any planned communications” for review prior to release. (Section H-51)

    Both the latest official SRNL/DOE position statement, and likely Dr. Majidi’s January 23rd speech, were pre-approved by DOE. Therefore the speech also appears to have reflected DOE’s position. The contract provision may also account for the silence of SRNL leadership at the only public forum held to date on February 6th.

  3. Final decisions involving third-party facilities are made by mutual agreement between DOE and BSRA.

“DOE agrees to furnish and make available to the Contractor, for its possession and use in performing the work under this contract… Government-owned or leased facilities at such other locations as may be approved by DOE for use under this contract; and Subject to mutual agreement, other facilities may be used in the performance of the work under this contract.” (Section H-54)

Therefore, DOE has approval power over the use of any offsite, third-party facilities.


4. BSRA is required to be closely involved with any leased, third-party facilities:

The Contractor shall perform overall integrated planning, acquisition, upgrades, and management of Government-owned, leased, or controlled facilities and real property accountable to SRNL. (Section C, 2.6.1)

DOE/SRNL’s position that the downtown project is strictly a City of Aiken project is contrary to this contractual requirement and many other similar clauses.


5. BSRA’s contract includes a standard “Community Commitment” clause, which involves identifying “those meaningful actions and activities that it intends to implement within the surrounding counties and local municipalities.” (Section H-50)

The Community Commitment clause reflects DOE’s policy (5) to “recognize that giving back to the community is a worthwhile business practice.”

This policy exists in part to project a positive community image of the Savannah River Site. BSRA’s Community Commitment plan describes a continuation of “the strong philanthropy and sponsorships of the SRS contractor community as well as the expansion of efforts to engage SRNL staff in community outreach.”

Questions for the Department of Energy

There are several questions. and implications of these contractual obligations, including :

  • Is the positive image of DOE and SRNL threatened by substantive community opposition to an SRNL facility in the downtown Aiken retail district? DOE’s Community Commitment requirement clearly does not include incitement of controversy. 
  • Has the Department of Energy become uncomfortable with SRNL leasing a facility through the complex, multiple layers of the City and the Aiken Corporation? 
  • Has the uncertainty and evolving nature of the downtown project , as reported in What is the Status of the Downtown SRNL Project and The $20 Million Dollar Question, given DOE second thoughts about any involvement with an Aiken Corporation that has not completed a major capital project in twenty years? And has Aiken Corporation’s recent Notification of Violation from the South Carolina Secretary of State’s Office added more apprehension to DOE’s decision making process?

    Only the Department of Energy can answer these questions, and given its long history of secrecy and lack of disclosure it is unlikely to do so.

    In the meantime, Aiken County residents are justified in asking these and other questions:
  • Is the City of Aiken forging ahead with a $20 million, 45,000 square-foot, three-story downtown office building without a  committed tenant?
  • Can the City of Aiken use the $20 million originally allocated to Aiken County by the legislature, and transferred to the City, for anything other than a facility specifically dedicated to the lab? 
  • Is the Department of Energy and SRNL/BSRA interested in the most recent proposal by developer Tracey Turner for the city to construct  the facility at former County Administration Building and Old Aiken Hospital? 
Conceptual Design drawing of developer Tracey Turner’s proposed SRNL facility at the Old Hospital property, as reported by Abby Bradshaw of WFXG-FOX News of Augusta.

Footnotes

(1) The lab facility, wherever it is located, is funded by $20 million of State of South Carolina plutonium settlement funds. The proposed downtown location is situated on properties obtained by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission for the failed Pascalis project. The properties are now owned by the City of Aiken. 

The involved properties cost the City of Aiken ~$4.25 million. If the property is leased to the Aiken Corporation, then the SRNL project costs rise to nearly $25 million.

If a parking garage is built to accommodate the facility workforce and visitors, that adds up to another $7 million in costs—also likely to derive from plutonium settlement funds. That raises project costs to ~$32 million.

A surface parking lot on Aiken Corporation property on Newberry Street is also proposed to supplement the garage. The property was purchased for $650,000 in 2022 utilizing a City of Aiken loan. This raises the costs by at least another $1 million when the loan is included.

__________

(2) Following is a transcript of Councilman Ed Woltz’s description of the proposed facility, slightly edited for clarity from archived City of Aiken YouTube transcript. Mr. Woltz was incorrect in stating the alternative location was “outside the gate” of Savannah River Site. The $20 million dedicated to an SRNL facility was originally intended to be located at or near the University of South Carolina at Aiken (USCA) campus. The intent was to create a broader “innovation district” with the Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative presently under construction at USCA.

Councilman Ed Woltz: Thank you Mr Mayor. Well ladies and gentlemen this is the first time I’ve ever used these things so I’m going to do my best on it. We’re going to do this together ladies and gentlemen. Over the last several weeks I’ve been asked to take the lead for Council and exploring a plan that I think is a great one that will be one of those major win-wins the Mayor has mentioned.

As as you may know Governor Henry McMasters and our legislative delegation have committed to investing in a new Workforce Development Center for the Savannah River National Laboratory.  This new building is to be located more centrally than the lab’s aging and remote facilities that’s at the Savannah River Site now. This is so important that the state has set aside 20 million in plutonium settlement funding to get it built. That’s 20 million dollars that’s in addition

[Applause]

That’s in addition to 25 million the Mayor just mentioned. That’s 45 million dollars of investment. It’s important to mention at this point that I may be up here leading this charge, but the credit is not mine the idea belongs to others. Former Aiken Municipal Development Corporation members chairman Keith Wood, Vice chairman Christopher Verenes, and Chamber of Commerce president David Jamerson really identified this as an opportunity more than one year ago. Thank you David.

They have worked tirelessly to get the funds for it and to have it located here in Aiken,  my hat’s off to them for teeing this up when it was needed. Even when the the funds seemed like a done deal last year, the question is where would it be built stayed up in the air. Could it be downtown Aiken or would it be just outside the Gated SRS.  What a night I am pleased to say that downtown Aiken has been selected as SRS’s overwhelming preference

[Applause]

It doesn’t hurt that while all this was taking place at about the same time it became clear that’s a very nice downtown properties that he owns right across the street just might be available for a new and better idea. Sometimes a better plan comes along just when you least expect it. First, let me be clear none of this is finalized and city council has just hadinitial discussions about it and so we’re not close to finalizing.

In fact I’m asking tonight the city staff within schedule a public forum within the next two weeks to gather input thoughts and concerns as we begin looking at the possibilities that as a city and Council so look for that in two weeks. Let me share with you some of the thoughts Council has had about initial discussions and we’ll begin exploring fully over the next few months.

We have a picture I hope yes of the building the proposed building. {points to screen behind him with photo of downtown area in question] I can’t see it you can. So this will provide for a 40 to 45 000 square foot office and exhibition space requested by SRNL between Bee Lane, Newbury Street and Richland Avenue.  The building will house approximately 100 or more paid SRNL workers with a rotating group of faculty and students from SRNL’s University collaborative. That group of universities includes the University of South Carolina, Clemson University, South Carolina State University, University of Georgia andGeorgia Tech. The building would also have a dedicated space for USC Aiken and provideeducation and Outreach downtown.

[Applause]

The plan is to preserve the existing businesses on the Block leaving Newbury Hall  untouched, relocated relocate Warneke Cleaners to the buildings at front of Richland Avenue. These retail buildings on Richland Avenue will be renting and upgradedas part of the project and the Thai [Taj Aiken, which features Indian cuisine] restaurant would remain on Richland Avenue.

The Proposal allows for the Johnson drugstore here on the corner of Richmond Newbury to undergo historic renovation and preserve it and return the exterior to more of its original look. So now the only anticipated demolition would be the dry cleaning building, the motel strip along B Lane that was built in 1981, and perhaps the old gun shop/finance company on Richland Avenue.

The next big question what about parking? We need to plan ahead for parking the demand created by this project. We do that through creating a surface parking lot across from St John’s Church on Newberry and that would provide dedicated workday parking for SRNL employees, and that would be available to the public and the church goers nights and weekends. We’d also be looking for the possibility of more parking behind the room we’re in right now which would be a  structured facility that would be a lot next to the new Municipal Building providing between the two spaces somewhere between 250 and 300 parking spaces.

Now, I’ve just outlined it but I want to bring someone up here who knows a lot more about this than any of us, Dr. the director of the National Laboratory.

__________

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

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

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

[Mayor Osbon adjusts his microphone] 

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

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

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

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

What else are we planning to put in this building? 

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

[very light applause and few laughs from the crowd]

There is a joke there somewhere right?

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

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

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

[Applause]

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

It takes a great Community to make something like this possible.

I want to make sure that I take a moment to recognize Governor Henry McMaster’s hard work to identify this need and to allocate 20 million dollars for this facility. We’re grateful for Governor McMaster’s  enduring support.

Moreover, we’re grateful to the South Carolina state legislatures for their wisdom to recognize the need and the necessity for this building to help us bring the laboratory to the community. I also want to recognize the city of Aiken, the Mayor’s office,  and the city council members for their steadfast supports to bring this project to reality.

I want to recognize the Department of Energy for selecting the Battelle Savannah River Alliance as the management and operating company for the laboratory, to create an enduring capability in South Carolina. This building along with the advanced manufacturing collaborative brings the Savannah River National Laboratory into the Heart of the Aiken Community we plan to be a productive citizens and hope to have a broader impact to our community.

__________

(4) The clause is based on Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) 970.5226-3, Community Commitment, which states:

“It is the policy of the DOE to be a constructive partner in the geographic region in which DOE conducts its business. The basic elements of this policy include: (1) Recognizing the diverse interests of the region and its stakeholders, (2) engaging regional stakeholders in issues and concerns of mutual interest, and (3) recognizing that giving back to the community is a worthwhile business practice. Accordingly, the Contractor agrees that its business operations and performance under the Contract will be consistent with the intent of the policy and elements set forth above.”

June 2023, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab

What is the status of the Savannah River National Lab building downtown?

6 Comments

by Lisa Smith

On May 10, 2023, the Aiken Corporation Board of Directors met at City Hall with Mr. Tim O’Briant, City of Aiken Economic Development Director and Mr. K.J. Jacobs of McMillan, Pazdan, Smith, (MPS) out of Greenville, SC, who was present on the big screen via a Zoom call. Mr. Jacobs is the Lead Architect conducting the $250,000 taxpayer funded feasibility study on the proposed Savannah River National Laboratory’s (SRNL) downtown Aiken building project. The Aiken Corporation is the private non-governmental non-profit corporation directed by Aurthur “Buzz” Rich, which received the $250,000 from City Council to administer the study.

Mr. Jacobs, a well-spoken professional, began his Zoom presentation by reviewing the progress to date. The timeline of events presented at the public meeting he conducted in February, estimated the feasibility study would be completed within 10 weeks (May). The current estimate is that it will be completed by August, which if done, doubles the original time estimate. The original MPS timeline also included public meeting #2 and #3 to be held in May, just before and after their final report was due. Because of research done and published in previous Aiken Chronicles’ articles (links to relevant articles below) we know that this concept has been in closed door discussions for at least eight months. To date there has been one public meeting. The next public meeting is now set tentatively for August when all of the work, and “internal meetings” will be completed. With Mr. O’Briant’s assistance, Mr. Jacobs went on to update the Aiken Corporation on the current status of the project and what he anticipates will be happening in the future months.

This article will discuss the important issues that were brought up during the Zoom presentation and will also include a transcript of the presentation. I’ve edited the transcript, only in instances where it improves the readability, for example removing “um” and “ah”. I’ve included contact information for each person mentioned at the bottom of the page and links to other relevant articles.

Here is a summary of important points:

  • A public listening session was conducted by Mr. Jacobs in Aiken in February 2023
  • In March, more meetings were held privately with “stakeholders” including the City of Aiken, The SRNL, USCA, Aiken Tech and the Aiken County Public Schools
  • Additional meetings were held with SRNL to understand their basic needs and to determine their need for space. After reviewing their needs against budget, the size of the building was reduced to the current estimate of 45,000 sq ft. The space will be divided over three floors with 15,000 sq ft on each. The three-story building will be 50′ tall and may be “T” shaped. Two thirds will be dedicated fully to secured space for the SRNL (“Not for public consumption…the lab obviously has a need for a segregated space…a lot of the work that they do is behind access control”), one third has been envisioned as a ground floor conference space. The SRNL is still envisioning how they will use the space.
  • Sharon Marra, Deputy Director of Operations at SRNL, is leading the process
  • In addition to the $250,000+ taxpayer dollars being spent on this study, MPS has also been contracted by the City of Aiken Design Review Board (DRB) to propose solutions for stabilizing the Hotel Aiken in order to prevent further deterioration.
  • MPS Structural engineers have determined that the Hotel Aiken is structurally sound.
  • According to Mr. Jacobs, Glenn Keyes, a trained preservation architect from Charleston, SC is “kind of on the team”. (We do not know the cost or extent of this. I’ve sent an email inquiry to Mr. Keyes and phoned his office. I was told “He’s just helping out with this; it is not a project going through our office”)
  • In addition, Cranston Engineering was engaged by the City of Aiken for a three-year contract (Cranston Engineering brought us the current Aiken County Municipal Palace on University Parkway). According to Mr. Jacobs, “Cranston Engineering was engaged to design the parking deck next to the municipal building (on Chesterfield St) …their initial pass had a bit of a hiccup. We (MPS) have now been engaged by Cranston to help with the design process…our whole team, including Cranston, will be working with the city and that proposal is now being reviewed…the parking need (200 cars) is related to this project (SRNL) but is a separate project.”
  • MPS has performed (as per Mr. O’Briant “not inexpensive”) laser scans of the Hotel Aiken, and “those retail buildings” including Warneke Cleaners, The Johnson Drug Store, Taj Restaurant and the other vacant retail stores. They now have accurate floor plans and other “powerful data” that can be used when the City issues “Requests for Quotations” (RFQ) to developers.
  • According to Mr. Jacobs, “It is not a foregone conclusion that anything gets torn down as a part of this process. We all agree that the Motel is probably going to go, but beyond that we don’t know yet what our opinion is as far as which buildings or portions of buildings.”
  • According to Mr. O’Briant, “The new program space does not include any retail footprint, but the overall site that we are studying does include retail aspects, specifically that’s why we had laser scans of the retail strip to examine how best to accommodate the displaced retail within those existing buildings…there is currently no intent to incorporate new and old together as one building, we think that whatever is there will remain as separate edifices”
  • Mr. Jacobs, “I don’t know yet who might be impacted…I think it’s appropriate to say Warneke could be affected, Taj could be affected…if the building needs to be in a certain spot and somebody needs to move, then, that’s just part of that design option” “…I don’t think it’s a 100% foregone conclusion that we have to get rid of Warneke”. Mr. O’Briant, “Ha, ha, KJ’s not going to get nailed down on this…”
  • Mr. O’Briant, “…the Aiken Corporation is undertaking pre-development exploration, they’ve engaged MPS and much like the AMENTUM model the Aiken Corporation will present the results…to the City, because this will be a City project…the Aiken Corporation won’t be building a building…you(Aiken Corp) will bring your recommendations to City Council ..(the City) would then undertake that project…and then if we did follow the AMENTUM model, there could be a role for the Aiken Corporation in managing that facility after it is constructed.”

The following is the transcript, taken from my iPhone video of Mr. Jacobs’ Zoom presentation. Although Mr. O’Briant described this as a public meeting, and we were allowed to observe without commenting, there was no public notice given of the meeting. The next Aiken Corporation Board Meeting will be at 10:00 am on June 14, 2023, at City Hall. There is also no public notice of that meeting.

KJ:  How are you all?

Tim:  We’re better now that IT, is ah, figured out how to turn everything on.

Alright, so, KJ this is our public meeting with the Aiken Corporation we have, um, we look forward to ah, getting an update from you and, ah, hopefully in the next few months we’ll be doing that and will be following the project as we go.

KJ:  Good Morning everyone. Thank you for allowing me to join virtually   for those of you who don’t know I’m KJ Jacobs the principal and one of the architects that will be working with you all on the SRNL Project, so Buzz (Rich, CEO Aiken Corporation) had asked me to give you all just a quick update. It might be easier in this format just to let me go through some things and then happy to answer any questions. I’ll try to talk slowly, if you all do want to interrupt it may just be a little bit easier, given the virtual format, to let me finish and then go through some Q and A. 

Just real quick, I want to start at the beginning, when we were engaged we held a public listening session back in February to allow folks,  you all know, if you remember at the time, we had really  just  started the project, uh, knew almost nothing other than we wanted to have this partnership with SRNL come together, so we had a good session  with public folks, of course everyone was very eager for more information, which we just didn’t have at the time, so that happened in February. We followed that up with a kickoff meeting and a series of programing sessions to get everybody together and moving forward on the project and to take individual stakeholders and have conversations about their perspective on the project and for SRNL in particular what their specific space needs were.  And that was, and that is, to work towards what we call a space needs program. What space needs to be in the building. So, we want to get all of that on paper and spread sheet form before everyone goes off and starts designing, so that we can make sure is kind of in alignment with what we all say that we need and of course that needs to get in alignment with the budget as well.

  So, we held those initial programming sessions with those stakeholders, I believe that was in March that we did that. The folks that we involved were the Savannah River National Lab folks, there were maybe two handfuls of folks from that group that were involved, the City folks were involved, in that we had Aiken Tech, USC Aiken and Aiken County Public Schools also in and really from those three, I want to make sure that we separate SRNL has a university consortium that is a group of universities that they work with as part of their world, in addition, separate but related, Aiken Tech, USC Aiken, and Aiken County Public Schools we view as stakeholders from a teacher ah training and pipeline and development aspect from a student pipeline aspect so we wanted to kind of hear their perspective and really the focus of that conversation was more around kind of what we envisioned as a ground floor, more public space that, you know depending on who you talk to, could kind of  be a little bit like a conference center. 

The National Lab folks have a thing that they call “postering sessions” which are where folks that are developing ideas and doing research basically summarize and present those findings. Ah, but just kind of a flexible space on the ground floor, so wanted to kind of understand, you know, did the school district think that there would be value in that? Did Aiken Tech think that? Did USC Aiken? So had all of those folks in to just to kind of get their high-level input, then we dug in with the national lab folks and went through a fairly detailed programming process. 

A preliminary early programming as happens every single time I’ve ever done this in my career, that space is, the number at the bottom the total square footage is bigger than we think the budget can possibly stand. So, we went back through and kind of just put a critical eye on it and just kind of thought it through in that context and have arrived at kind of a version two of that program and, at a high level, and before I even say what it is, the program has not yet been reconciled with the budget, that’s one of our next steps that I’ll talk about. The program as it currently sits is about 45,000 sq ft in very rough terms, it’s about  two thirds what I’ll call dedicated national lab space so their office space, their conference rooms, their support space, that are really are not for public consumption and then the remaining third, or about 15,000 sq ft, we’ve envisioned as a ground floor, you know more kind of conferencing meeting exhibit kind of space which I’ve described a second ago.  So, that that program sits at about 45,000 sq ft.  We are currently, in fact I have an email from the lab, the folks needing it from the lab side, we are currently taking another, I’ll say cut at that, just to make sure that we’re, um, just really getting it as efficient as possible.  A lot of it really hinges on how the lab, they’re really just beginning to think through how they are going to use the space.  As you might imagine many people out um you know, behind the fence, are pretty excited about being downtown so for example human resources, you know they kind of imagined everybody from HR coming downtown but they still have to have HR folks out there. So, the lab folks are working through just kind of operationally what it would mean for them to have this different than what they have done in the past. They’re working on that. We are communicating with Sharon Marra, who’s leading that process and expect to kind of refine that program another time.  I don’t know that it’s going to go down in square footage, but I think we’ll have a better understanding of what the group collectively thinks what those needs are. I should probably pause there and see if you all have questions about that.

Board Member:  Does the 45,000 include common area percentage, elevator, stairs and all of that?

KJ:  Yes sir, great question, the sq footage I’ll talk about are what we call grossed up and yes, that includes essentially how big the building will need to be, so if we could just go build it today the total sq footage would be about 45,000 sq ft.

Board Member: Thank you.

KJ: Yup, that’s a great question thank you for clarifying that.  And I’ll talk in a minute about what the next steps are for that, so if we’re clear on that, I’ll just keep moving.  A little bit of a side bar, but I think probably related and of interest to this group, if you all aren’t aware the Design Review Board for the City of Aiken, so part of our initial engagement with you all was to bring Glenn Keyes, the historical preservation architect out of Charleston to kind of have him on our team, to kind of help make sure that we’re being, ah, contextually as sensitive as we can be with this building, the building that we’re here to talk about.

Related to that of course in everyone’s mind, although separate for us, is the Hotel Aiken itself.  The DRB, itself, asked that we help put together a proposal to help them understand what it would take to stabilize that building.  And again, that’s a completely separate engagement but I think just for this groups understanding information, and I don’t want to put words in the City’s mouth, but I think… make some good faith efforts to keep the hotel from deteriorating further while the whole process of what happens next on that sight was to take place, so we can put together a stabilization plan. I’ll skip the details of it, it is essentially a series of short term, relatively minimal investments to keep the building from decaying further.  It is not structurally unsound, it is not structurally unsound, there have, I think there’ve been shingles and a few random things that might be on the ground that alarmed people.  The structural engineer has reviewed it and we’ve got a plan in place to do that so if there’s time, if you’re interested, I’m happy to talk more about that but it really is a separate occasion from what we’re talking about. 

Also, related but separate, as I think you all know, Cranston Engineering was engaged to work on the design of the parking deck next to the municipal building. I think the initial pass at that had a bit of a hiccup.   We have now been engaged by Cranston to help with that design process. We have the proposal for our whole team including Cranston, we would be working for the city and that proposal I think is in being reviewed.  Of course, that parking need is related to this project but again separate project, but I just wanted you all to know all of the relationships and that that was happening. So, we anticipate moving forward on that and helping with that design process, again we’ll have Glenn Keyes involved, so that we kind of have belt and suspenders in trying to design something that is as contextually appropriate, you know, as a two hundred person, um, you know, two hundred car parking garage can be.  Any thoughts, questions there?

Board Member: …the retail strip between Bee Lane and Newberry

KJ:  Yep, good question, my next point was going to be, part of the, hotel stabilization process was to do a laser scan of the existing conditions of both the hotel and those retail buildings, and the purpose of that was twofold. One for the city, when that RFQ is issued for the city to have good documentation of what, and when I say good documentation, I mean just drawings of what’s there, floor plans and elevations to share that with developers, so that you can eliminate some of the unknowns in battle. It’s pretty valuable, so we’ve done a laser scan of the Hotel Aiken, so we’ve got that documented. We also scanned all of the retail buildings, Warneke, around, and have those now documented, what the existing conditions are, floor plans, reflected ceiling plans and exterior elevations.  So, we now have that in hand so that we know, when we get to look at the site, again, I’m going to say even to you all, in a smaller group, to us it is not a foregone conclusion that almost anything gets torn down as a part of this process. I think, the motel, we all agree is probably going to go, but beyond that we don’t yet know what our opinion is as far as which buildings or portions of buildings, but we now have that information scanned and, in the computer, and assessable to us, so that we, now know what we’re dealing with.

Tim O’Briant: And to that end, just, a, we, we got that information last week, um, on both the hotel and the retail strip, and, having worked on these buildings and these projects for the last, forever, um, this process was not inexpensive but to have actual almost blueprint quality, um, drawings, ah, after a two day visit and process of lasering those drawings, it’s pretty powerful data, so it’s gonna be helpful.

KJ:  And you all make a very good investment in that.  I looked at it last night and its very good information both for the hotel and the retail.  The question about the retail building reminds me, the building program, the 45,000sq ft that I referred to a minute ago, that does not currently include any new, any space in a new building for any retail of any kind.  We’ve all said that if we displace anyone with demolition its understood that that will be, of course they will be relocated appropriately but the building program does not include space currently for any kind of shell retail space or space for the cleaners or Taj Aiken, which are the two that we all talk about

Board Member:  KJ, that scan, is it like Manafort, is that the company for like 3D or 2D?

KJ: Um, I’m gonna be honest, I don’t know who did it. We’ve done a bunch of laser scans in the past, it’s better than anything I’ve ever seen.

Board Member:

KJ:  um, ya, happy to share, I think you already have it, but there are PDFs of floor plans and elevations, but I don’t know who the software company was.

Tim O’Briant:  Um, not to split hairs, but KJ, what you just said is true the new program space needs doesn’t include any retail footprint, but the overall site that we’re studying does include, um, the retail aspects, specifically that’s why we had laser scans of the retail strip, to, to, ah, examine how best to accommodate the displaced retail within those existing buildings and it’s important because there are some things that have been out there, ah, for the Aiken Corporation and the public to know that there is currently no intent to incorporate the new and the old together as one building, we think that whatever is there will likely remain as separate edifices.

KJ: Based on what I know today, I would agree that that’s the likely outcome of it, yes. Just a couple of other things before I throw out what’s next, and I know we are all interested in money, costs, we are developing, um, we’ve got a tool, that we’ve developed over the years, what I call a total project cost model which is a frightening long list of things that cost money on a project.  What we’ve found is it’s really best in an environment like this, this is a complex project, its best to identify all of the things that might cost money.  We’ve already assigned an essential value that we need to validate over time, for each of those, the other piece of that is, of course, that we all understand who’s responsible for what.  Some things are more obvious than others, the core and shell of the new building is part of the $20,000,000 grant. If we were need to, get, for example, natural gas from across the street over to the site, who pays for that?  Those are the kinds of interfaces and interactions that we need to make sure we’ve got on paper and are beginning to talk to.  So, we’ve actually got two cost scenarios we’re running at the moment, and then we’ll be sharing back with your leadership, what those look like. 

Again, the goal there is to start to reconcile space needs program with budget and then once we think we’re aligned there, we are quickly going to move to site planning and beginning to study the actual site, so that initial site planning exercise with all of those laser scans is going to be tremendously useful. So, we’ll start to site plan, create a few options for where the building might go and to do some rudimentary blocking and stacking, we call it, to begin to show how the program might stack up on the site. Literally four by four, and of course we’re all interested in the massing of that building, where it sits on the site and what it looks like relative to its neighbors. So, those are sort of the immediate next steps that we’re all incredibly anxious to get to. We just need to get some of this stuff behind us before that….(once) we understand the massing of the building downtown, we believe, we would be comfortable and ready to go before the public, give them an update, show them what we’ve done, um, and, and, you know, of course, have folks kind of poke holes in it and ask questions and present their ideas.

Board Member:  KJ, will the retail be done first on Richland Ave or is it all together all at once?

KJ:  I don’t think we know enough to answer that question.  I think the way I’d answer it is that however we do it we will not disrupt the business operations of any retail persons that are affected, and I just don’t know yet, I mean I’ve been the one wanting to look at it, I mean I just don’t know yet who might be impacted, what that might look like.  I think it’s appropriate to have said out loud Warneke could be affected, Taj could be affected. You know, I think we’d probably love to affect fewer people than more, so that’s kind of one of our internal goals, but we need to look at, you know, if the building needs to be in a certain spot and somebody needs to move then that’s just part of that design option.  So, I think when we get to site planning options, you all, we’ll be able to talk as a group about what are the pros and cons of each.

Board Member:  Well, it seems to me Warnekes, ah, when we put a……. keep Warneke’s where it’s at and Warnekes supposed to move into the retail from what I understand, so seems to me like that needs to be thought out….

KJ: Ah, I do understand your question, um, we have not been working under the assumption that Warnekes, that Warneke, would definitely have a new space and that it would definitely be within the footprint of the building.  If that is the direction then we can certainly incorporate that, but we have not yet. We do not have to demolish Warneke to put a 45,000 sq ft building on that site, I can say that. Now, it may not be where we want it to be or look like we want it to be, but that is not an absolute given, from my perspective.  But I think we need to be clear about what you just said.

Board Member:   KJ, is that possible given the height restrictions, to build a 45,000 sq ft building on that site without touching Warneke?

KJ:  We’ve got a very rudimentary, some boxes that are 15,000 sq ft, which is 45,000 divided by three, and, yes, I mean it’s an urban site, um, but, ya, I think it’s possible to, to not, again, I don’t think its 100% foregone that we have to get rid of Warneke.

Tim O’Briant:  Ha, Ha, KJ’s not going to be nailed down until he’s ready to be nailed down.

KJ:  You all this is, I, Tim you’re right, I mean really, I’m not trying to be evasive, I want to be very careful we don’t want to make any commitments to anybody that we can’t keep, right, and we just, we’ve not drawn it up. I think, you know, once we’ve got some site plan options I think we can all look at it and go, you know what, Warneke just needs to be relocated or you know what, we don’t have to, it’s just still a little bit too early in that to tell and I just don’t want to make commitments to you all that we can’t keep.

Tim O’Briant: Well that’s part of the professional wisdom that we asked you to bring to the process, because us non-architects can make some assumptions based on what we think the measurements, um, on a computer screen, with Google, um, but you know a bit more about it, so, no, I don’t want you to commit to any course until, like you say, there are a lot of questions and, ah, so far we’re developing very slowly answers, so.

KJ:  OK, you all, I’ll give you a great example, we now have a site survey, that shows all of the utilities, or what we think are all of the utilities, even just the locations of existing utilities and trying to be moving, you all know, moving transformers, moving electrical services is incredibly expensive. The existing utilities that are in the ground are a huge constraint that we need to make sure that we’re working around so, you can plop a 15,000sq ft box somewhere but if there are six transformers sitting there you might want to look somewhere else.  So, we just aren’t there yet, but again that’s top of mind for us as we start to study the site now.

Tim O’Briant: And, to, just to, it pays to remind ourselves where the process is here once in a while and before the Aiken Corporation is undertaking predevelopment exploration, they’ve engage, you’ve engaged, a, McMillian Pazdan Smith and KJ, much like the AMENTUM model the Aiken Corporation will present, the results of the predevelopment to the City, because this would be a City project, not the Aiken Corporation, won’t be building a building, just to make that clear, uh, you will do all of this further exploration and ask the tough questions, with your advisors and then bring some recommendations back to City Council.   City Council would then undertake that project, get it out, get it completed, and then if we did follow the AMENTUM model, there could be a role for the Aiken Corporation in managing that facility after it is constructed.  So, just kind of, history can be instructive there as a successful former example of the AMENTUM building.

KJ: Any other questions for me? I’m afraid I’ve gone over your time I’m sorry… We’re all ears, um, yes ma’am.

Board Member, Martha Lockhart: I wonder if it, can you give us a rough idea of how high a three-story building would end up being?

KJ:  Yes, we’re working with a height restriction, we would, I forget what that number is, but we would have to be within that height restriction

Tim O’Briant: It’s 55’

KJ: So, let me do some quick math, I’m sorry I wasn’t ready for that question with the answer.  I mean, I think, 50ish feet is a three story, I mean a typical three-story building, again, for efficiency and economy you want that to be rectangular in form. The more the rectangle turns into a crazy shape, the more expensive it gets, but it, were not assuming that it is a three-story rectangular prism on the site, I mean, I think there are site opportunities and constraints. There’s the pedestrian view and experience of right of way that may alter what that looks like, but the bulk of the building, as far as we know, is going to be a three story, kind of a traditional office building scale. 

Board Member:  Question on the lobby area which we had for USC Aiken, Schools and Aiken Tech um, that, that…. what about security required by the lab? Will security have a boundary space or separate, just a question for you.

KJ:  Great question, we are already thinking about that. I think the ideal scenario, the way that I described it where 2/3 or two floors would be the National Lab space and 1/3 the ground floor would be what we’re just calling public, which isn’t necessarily wide open to the public seven days a week.  The Lab obviously has a need to segregate themselves from, a lot of the work that they do, behind access control, it could be on the first floor, some of that could be on the first floor, more ideally and naturally it will be on an upper floor so that you can, sort of, take an elevator bank and restrict access there, sort of leisure controlled access, um, they would still be using spaces downstairs, for their public engagements. Their university consortium, their outreach to students, their postering sessions, their recruiting for their own employees. They would still be using that space, it would just be less secure things that they will be doing down there, so any, you know, the computational, the computer folks HR folks would likely be upstairs, and so we’ll handle access control that way.

Tim O’Briant: Um, so, wherever…is for USC Aiken, Aiken Tech and the school district to have some physical space set aside for their programs within the building in cooperation with the Lab.

Board Member: From a practical standpoint heat and air will be zoned…I guess I’m wondering if you have separate space, heat and air, who will be paying the utility bills if it’s used by somebody else other than the lab?  That’s getting it down in the weeds, but, if you’re managing the building, you really got to…

KJ: That’s a great question, I’ll leave the lease negotiations terms to you all.  I think we’ll be approaching it as if it’s a multi-tenant building, with the ability to have the Lab, it wouldn’t be, you know, the HVAC systems would all be integrated but there would be no difference than an office building with separate tenants. You’d be able to meter or control and understand those costs and allocate them appropriately. We’re of course not a part of the whole structure of the deal and how costs are being appropriated between folks, but the building would be treated like a multi-tenant….

We’d like, in the next 4-6 weeks to be in a position where, internally, meaning internal to those of us in the room, that we’ve got that study kind of wrapped up. What we told the public is that we would share that with them and then kind of have a meeting with them to allow folks to provide feedback.  I would think that would probably be beyond that 6 week so, you know, maybe in the next month or so we might be able to set a date for that public meeting, that might then be another month or six weeks out. We’ve probably got 4-6 weeks’ worth of work collectively to try to finalize the program, make sure we’re good understanding costs and then, do some quick site studying, so we’ve got some good graphics. I think, everyone (chuckle) you all included all are really hungry for understanding what the physical building is going to be like downtown.  There’s just some leg work we’ve got to do to get to a point where we’re comfortable with all of that.

Tim O’Briant:  KJ, not, not intended as a trip to the woodshed, or anywhere else, but, ah, we are behind, I say we. The initial schedule that MPS put up on the screen at the initial meeting and I just want to acknowledge that we, understand that we’re behind the schedule and, and we’re updating that schedule.

KJ:  Yes, sir, and we, I, acknowledge that as well. I think what we want to talk about is, what I don’t want to do is set a date a month or six weeks out for the public before we know we can collectively commit to it. So, what I’d like to do is just, is let’s help manage that expectation and communication so that here in the next few weeks we can establish that kind of end date for it.  Again, I think finalizing the program and getting a little more comfort on how the budgets going to shape out will go a long way.  We’ve got some work to do but once we think we’re good on program and budget.

Tim O’Briant: So, the best way to say it, or one of the best ways to say it is we need to take the time to – all together now- Do it Right. (All of the board chuckles)

KJ:  Yes, but, Tim, I appreciate you pointing out that we’re late. What we don’t want to do is set expectations with the public and, in a way, we’ve done that, where we’ve said we’ll be back here soon and we’re not yet back.  So, we can talk about what that communication looks like, I’m comfortable with us communicating, you know that some …..End of video recording.

If you have questions or concerns, please contact:

Mr. KJ Jacobs, Principal and Director, McMillan Pazdan Smith PKJJacobs@mcmillanpazdansmith.com 864-978-4399 or 864-242-2033

Ms. Sharon Marra, Deputy Director of Operations SRNL, no email address available, snail mail address: SRNL SRS, Aiken, SC 29808, 803-725-6211

Mr. Tim O’Briant, City of Aiken Economic Development Director tobriant@cityofaikensc.gov 803-502-4997

Mr. Glenn Keyes, Glenn Keyes Architects gk@glennkeyesarchitects.com 843-722-4100

Other related Aiken Chronicle articles:

Three Missing Pages covers the Aiken Corporation contract with the City of Aiken

Project Labscalis Annual Operating Costs covers the total estimated costs for demolition and site prep, construction, and annual maintenance costs for the proposed SRNL building.

Off-Site Infrastructure provides the history of the lab project.

There’s a Joke in There Somewhere is about the State of the City Address where the lab announcement was made.

Structured Parking Solution for the Lab is about the connection between a proposed parking garage and the lab project.

Other related articles:

Aiken Standard 3/16/23 by M. Christian, Aiken City Council Approves Aiken Corporation Agreement Moving New Downtown Project Forward

Aiken Standard; 5/29/23; by M. Christian. Savannah River National Lab considered two other downtown Aiken sites for workforce center

The video of the February 6, 2023 Public Forum, or ‘listening session’ is available on the City’s You Tube channel. .

May 2023, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab

A Question on Security

3 Comments

The following email (1) was sent by Don Moniak to Nationallabaikenproject@mcmillanpazdensmith.com on April 18, 2023.

No answer has been forthcoming.

NOTE: All federal facilities must go through the process including leased facilities and non nuclear Department of Energy facilities.

________________

Donald Moniak Apr 18, 2023, 11:00 AM
to National

Mr. Jacobs, 

What security assessment is being conducted for the lab project? 

1. Is a Facility Security Level (FSL) determination being made that follows DOE guidelines or Homeland Security guidelines for federal facilities, as defined in the Risk Management Process from the Interagency Security Committee? 

2. Page 16 of the Risk Management Process features a Security Level Determination Matrix. Has one of these been completed yet for the 45,000 square foot lab building ? 

Thank You, 

Donald Moniak

____________________



( 1) The original email is below.

Editorials, Letters, May 2023, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab

Uncertainties Plague Downtown Lab

11 Comments

Guest Editorial by Dick Dewar

May 22, 2023

On January 23, 2023. I attended the State of the City speech by Mayor Osbon. He had promised some new developments in response to Project Pascalis. We were not disappointed. I suspected that some in the audience knew exactly what the speech would contain. 

Mayor Pro Tem Ed Woltz announced that Governor Henry McMaster and our legislative delegation have committed to investing in a new workforce development center for the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL).  Former AMDC Members, Chairman Keith Wood, Vice Chair Chris Verenes, and Chamber President David Jameson identified this as an opportunity more than a year ago. That would have been in early 2022.

They worked tirelessly lobbying to get the funding for it and to have it located here in Aiken.  Small group meetings were held without public notice or participation to determine where this structure would be built.  THE FINAL DECISION ON WHERE THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE BUILT IS DETERMINED BY SRNL.  The only requirement was that it had to be built in Aiken County. So if you are disturbed about the location of the building, the fault lies with SRNL.

The Mayor insisted in his speech that “none of this is a done deal and City Council has had initial discussions about it, but nothing is even close to being finalized.” Yet not one public meeting has been held to affect the decision on where this building would be built. 

In a public release dated May 16, 2023, “The SC Joint Bond Review Committee today accepted the allocation of $20 million TOWARD the construction of a state-of-the-art facility for SRNL in downtown Aiken.” Please note that the $20 million may not cover the total cost of the building and the City will be liable for the remainder. “The funding obligation gives the responsibility for producing a new home for the SRNL workforce development center to the City of Aiken” This is contrast to what a member of the Aiken delegation has stated. SRNL had TOTAL AUTHORITY on where this center can be built.

Somehow between the mayor’s speech on January 23, 2023, SRNL made the decision on where the center would be built. No doubt they may have been influenced by the members of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) and members of Aiken City Council. A major influence on the location of the SRNL center is that it justifies the construction of a parking garage which will cost Aiken taxpayers another $7 million,   

On March 13, the City approved a $250,000 no-bid professional services contract with the Aiken Corporation in violation of a city ordinance which requires that contracts of this size be put to bid. This is a blatant violation of a City Ordinance. Yet no comment from the City Attorney.

This no-bid contract also states that “the Aiken Corporation will oversee the construction phase eventually owning the building.”

The Aiken Corporation is a non-profit organization created by and serving at the discretion of Aiken City Council, but acts in an INDEPENDENT manner. Its primary donor is the City of Aiken. Such an arrangement is known as “quasi governmental”. Once again, non-elected members of the community get to make major financial decisions with no public input or scrutiny,

It is worth highlighting the fact that the City of Aiken built the Aiken Department of Safety building by bidding for its construction and the facility was built on time and on budget.

It is also worth noting that the City of Aiken built the Lessie B. Price Senior Center using the same process. It was built on time and on budget.

Finally, the City of Aiken built its new headquarters using the same process and it was finished on budget. 

Why do we need a different procedure for the SRNL center? Why do we need to give the building away to a “quasi governmental” agency?

At this point, it appears the City will give the Aiken Corporation four of the seven properties involved in the massive $9.6 million AMDC purchase: 

  • Warneke Cleaners, McGhee Building (includes old CC Johnson Drug Store), and Taj Restaurant, collectively purchased for $2.25 million. 
  • Holley House, purchased for $2.125 million (half of the $4.25 million Hotel Aiken/Holley House purchase). 

This is money to be given to the Aiken Corporation with zero return to the City essentially a loss of $4.375 million.

This leaves the City still owning:

  • The Hotel Aiken, purchased for $2.125 million. 
  • The Beckman Building at 106 Laurens Street, purchased for $1 million. 
  • Newberry Hall, purchased for $2 million.” 

With this plan, the Aiken Corporation will own the building, charge rent to SRNL, and probably have the City be responsible for maintenance, upkeep, and utilities. Also keep in mind that the City is responsible for the entire cost of the building. If it costs $25 or $30 million, the City would pay everything in excess of $20 million.

SRNL’s decision removes currently taxable property in the middle of our downtown making it no longer taxable. What is the cost of this action over the next 20 years?

I would prefer that a responsible developer determine how much the building would cost before any financial commitment is made by the City. It is shocking that there is no Memorandum of Agreement between SRNL and the City of Aiken outlining SRNL’s requirements which would enable the City to more accurately determine the cost of construction. 

We don’t need the Aiken Corporation involved. It makes no financial sense.

Call the Mayor and your council member to protest this process. Demand more financial data before any commitment is made.

Attend City Council meeting to do the same. 

Dick Dewar
Aiken, SC

________________


Dick Dewar was elected in 2007 to Aiken City Council District 3 and served three terms. He did not seek reelection in 2019.