The following letter was sent on September 15, 2023 to State Senators Tom Young (R-Aiken) and Shane Massey (R-Edgefield), who is also the Senate Majority Leader.
“Dear Senators Young and Massey,
1. The General Assembly allocated $20 million from the SRS/plutonium settlement fund to Aiken County for “Off-site Infrastructure Improvements for SRS/National Lab, including the Aiken Technology/Innovation Corridor.”
2. Not long after this, Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) officials reached an agreement with the Aiken Municipal Development Commission to locate an SRNL “innovation district” facility within the City of Aiken. All of the choices available as of June 2022 have yet to be disclosed.
3. In January 2023 the City of Aiken applied for the funds, and this summer the JBRC approved the request. Below is the request form from the City of Aiken. This request for $20 million in state funds clearly states the project is specifically intended for future use by SRNL’s operating contractor. The project title is “Off-site Infrastructure SRS/National Lab.”
4. As previously related, in July 2023 the DOE/SRNL issued a statement denying any role in the process. In six months time, DOE/SRNL developed a strong hesitancy over the project, undoubtedly due in large part to opposition to the location—but not the project. DOE/SRNL must approve any lease arrangement for the SRNL operating contractor.
5. This week the Aiken Corporation released a draft feasibility study in which the words “National Laboratory,” “SRNL” and any other mention of the Department of Energy institutions are completely absent.
The project has been rebranded as a “Mixed-Use Building.” There is only a “potential” tenant.
It is increasingly evident that the $20 million allocation from SRS/plutonium settlement funds that was awarded to the City of Aiken is no longer specifically for an SRNL facility. How is this not a misappropriation of funds?
6. There are other options for these funds, many of which have not yet been explored. In regard to the latter:
a. There is no requirement for this facility to be leased to the SRNL operating contractor, nor any requirement for any entity to profit via a lease arrangement. There is also no requirement saying SRNL’s operating contractor, which includes the three major SC universities, cannot inhabit this facility on a rent-free basis.
b. There is no requirement as to future ownership.
c. Why not consider having the facility constructed somewhere other than the downtown Aiken retail district, and then have the property and/or facility donated/transferred to USCA? In this manner, a public entity with a proven track record of property management could own and manage the facility. The SRNL operating contractor could utilize the site and only pay utilities and maintenance costs.
If the contractor were to depart, then USCA would own the facility. Considering the growth in the area and at the University itself, the facility could undoubtedly be used by USCA or its University partners in a productive manner.
As I wrote in Off-Site Infrastructure, the key reason for this facility is that the SC University system committed to building a “Workforce Development Center” in its role within the Battelle Savannah River Alliance:
A commitment from the State of South Carolina to “make a substantial investment to support DOE and SRNL,” that included a “possible infrastructure investment colocated with SRNL to support workforce development.” (Section J-14) (4) ”
Maybe it is time to return to this contractually obligated investment commitment and what this $20 million was really all about–supporting workforce development.
As I wrote in an editorial yesterday titled Gathering on the Rooftop Terrace, this facility is increasingly looking more like a public relations project than a workforce development project. How can anyone approve of a federal facility, leased or otherwise, that is designed with a rooftop gathering place? Especially with $20 million of state funding for a project the federal government will not commit to or become involved in even in a consulting role?
Thank you,
Donald Moniak
————————————————————————————-
October 3, 2023 and letter to Senators Young an Massey, and cc’ed to Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, State representative Bart Blackwell, and three members of Aiken City Council who were not up for re-election.
Dear Senators,
I have yet to hear back on this issue of the $20 million SRNL project.
As an update, the Aiken Corporation last week voted to locate the “Mixed Use” building–which they hope will become an SRNL-leased facility—at their own private property on NW Newberry Street. One condition for moving forward, if Aiken City Council accepts their recommendation, is a lease commitment by SRNL.
Perhaps my letter and the efforts of others to the effect that the lack of a lease can be viewed as a misappropriation of funds contributed to that provision? One can only hope we commoners had that kind of influence through our peripheral participation in the decision making process.
Aiken Corporation is a private organization with private property, and as such this recommendation is very questionable. While the organization is reported as “created by and serving at the discretion of Aiken City Council,” I have only found a partnership agreement from 1995 to support that contention. There is no ordinance to that effect as there was with the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (which I believe could have completed some effective work had it better solicited citizen input and not been implicitly assigned the Pascalis project by the incumbent Mayor who recently was defeated in the GOP runoff in part due to his obsession with that project.)
At the 9/25/23 City Council meeting, ACorp Chair of the Board Buzz Rich could only describe the relationship between the COA as a “private/public partnership”. There was no evidence provided it is actually a subsidiary of the City.
To have ACorp in further control of this project could be a grave mistake. The organization has mostly been involved in six-figure deals and projects for more than twenty years now, and almost exclusively so in the past decade. Now they are expected to tackle an eight-figure project worth up to $20 million but also potentially involving another $5 to $10 million for other infrastructure?
The better option is for the City of Aiken to take over and allow its very capable procurement department to issue an RFP that can be tracked and lead to a level of openness and accountability the ACorp has not proven capable of achieving. This would also remove any indication of ethical impropriety, such as if the highly capable Reynolds Company were to be awarded the project.
This is one of the very few projects in the Pu $ settlement that has impropriety written all over it. The other of course has been the purchase of the Pascalis properties, an act that made the City of Aiken a commercial landlord for the foreseeable future and compromised our free-market system that has largely governed downtown Aiken commerce and development via the more “invisible hand” for a century.
As such, it is the responsibility and obligation of the Aiken delegation to increase its involvement in monitoring this very controversial project. While this is an example of the Plaintiff reimbursing the Defendant, it also has the dual purpose of meeting a State of SC commitment to invest in the SRNL operating contract on behalf of the University system.
Yet, to my knowledge not a single delegation member was present at any recent public meetings, indicating a disturbing complacency about a $20 million allocation and a comfort level with the Aiken Corporation’s arrangement with the City of Aiken that is not shared by the community at large. The more people learn about the dealings between the two entities, the more disenchanted they become.
Facts matter, and the fact is the ACorp recent history of project successes is spotty at best. The organization’s two-year involvement in a 25-acre donated parcel off York Street and a small development on Union Street can only be described as floundering. The latter is already way over budget despite a very generous infrastructure subsidy by the COA.
How can this organization, which lacks a single real developer or construction manager on its Board, be trusted to administer a $20 million project? How can ACorp be trusted to pursue this project when its minor efforts to produce a “feasibility study” ran six months behind schedule and produced a very subpar, underwhelming document which involved oversights that were critically dissected by Turner Development and several citizens, exposing it as a sham of a process?
Thank you for considering these issues,
Don MoniakFreelance Writer and Researcher
———————————————————————————————
Following the previous two letters, Senator Young informed me that the Senate Staff was looking into the situation. An October 6, 2023 letter was then sent for the staff to further consider:
Senator Young,
If you could also forward this information to the staff, that would be appreciated.
Additional information regarding the Aiken Corporation’s relationship to the City of Aiken.
1. The Aiken Corporation does not appear to be a Community Development Corporation (CDC) as defined in SC 34, Chapter 43. A listing of all certified South Carolina CDCs and CDFIs can be seen here. Aiken Corporation is not on that list. Unless the organization can provide evidence to the contrary, Aiken Corp members, City officials, and other officials should refrain from referring to the organization as a Community Development Corporation as defined by state law.
2. Unlike the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), the Aiken Corporation was not created by Aiken City Council. Whereas the AMDC was formed by a stand-alone ordinance, the Aiken Corporation was independently formed. There is no ordinance establishing the Aiken Corporation as a City of Aiken institution, board, commission, or even committee. Aiken Corporation is not in the City of Aiken Municipal Code.
3. According to a June 5, 2002 memorandum from Aiken staff attorney Richard Pierce to Aiken City Council, “Aiken Corporation is not a division of the City of Aiken.”
4. Whereas the AMDC was created by, and served at the discretion of City Council, and could be dissolved merely by repealing its founding ordinance, the Aiken Corporation’s relationship with the City Council appears to be only contractual:
a. According to the March 13, 1995 Aiken City Council agenda, pages 20-57, the founding relationship between City Council and Aiken Corporation was only by resolution and by contract. It was a partnership, and Aiken Corporation is not a subsidiary of the City of Aiken beyond the fact that its existence is, in practice, entirely dependent upon City Council largesse.
b. On March 13,1995 Aiken City Council approved a resolution expressing a partnership with the Aiken Corporation: “The outline for the Aiken Corporation includes resolutions with the Aiken Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Aiken Economic Development Partnership. Each of these resolutions simply states that the city will continue to cooperate with each of the groups.”c. On the same day, Council approved a contract with Aiken Corporation to:”begin a cooperative economic development effort, led by The Aiken Corporation, and supported by the City of Aiken; to jointly undertake the planning activities required to identify the specific goals and resources necessary for success; and to develop agreements that clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of each party in this endeavor.”
Thank you,
Aiken City Council could revoke its long-standing contract with Aiken Corporation, but it cannot dissolve Aiken Corporation as it did with the AMDC. As such, Aiken Corporation can be viewed as an independent party that is dependent upon City of Aiken funding, but not as a subsidiary controlled by the City of Aiken; and as such should not in any way have standing as a “developer” of a $20 million state-funded project. Thank you for considering this information.
Donald Moniak
———————————————————-
A final letter was sent to Senators Young and Massey, Representatives Bart Blackwell (R-Aiken) and Bill Clyburn (D-Aiken/Edgefield). The emails referenced in the letter are available here.
Dear Senator Young,
I do hope the legislative session is proceeding in as sane and deliberative manner as possible.
I am going to try to keep this short:
1. The $20 million of SRS/Plutonium settlement funds for the “SRS/National Lab Offsite Infrastructure” allocated to Aiken County and transferred to City of Aiken allocation from the SRS/plutonium settlement funds is in serious danger of being misappropriated.
2. Instead of offsite infrastructure that meets the contractual obligations for participation of the three major SC universities in the Battelle Savannah River Alliance’s (BSRA) SRNL operating contract, the current plan is to use the $20 million to build office space infrastructure for a private organization (The Aiken Corporation) that hopes to lease the space to BSRA. However, as reported here, the best BSRA can maybe commit to for now is a one-year, annually renewable lease. (up to ten years).
3. The first email below (obtained via FOIA) shows that the City of Aiken and Aiken Corporation were seeking to use the $20 million for an Aiken Corporation facility which BSRA might “consider leasing.” Is this what the legal profession might describe as “bad faith?” Note also the absence of the Aiken Corporation’s attorney who is contracted to help negotiate with BSRA—paid for with City funds dedicated to this project–from the list of email recipients.
SRNL/BSRA may also be negotiating for space for office space on Centennial Drive. Dr. Majidi has not confirmed or denied this yet).
5. Three months ago I asked how the proposal to use $20 million of SRS/Plutonium settlement funds for “SRS/National Lab Offsite Infrastructure…” to build a private “Mixed-use” office building for the Aiken Corporation is not a misappropriation of funds.
I was told the Senate Staff would be reviewing the issue, but never heard if any opinion was ever issued.
6. This November 9, 2023, email (also obtained via FOIA) reported that the Aiken County delegation had expressed concern about the $20 million project, that it is “in jeopardy unless more concrete progress can be demonstrated.” Two months later, there is only an approval from DOE for BSRA to negotiate one-year, renewable leases. That might be concrete progress, but the concrete is far from being dry and appears to be very short of rebar. Are one-year leases acceptable for a $20 million building?
7. The current plan bears little to no resemblance to the original intent of this project, or to the project described in the funding request by the City of Aiken. Considering the glut of commercial office space across the nation and here locally, the planned facility could even end up being unoccupied if SRNL/BSRA does not renew its lease; it does not satisfy the contractual obligations of the State of South Carolina to provide such offsite infrastructure as the required investment for SC State, USC, and Clemson to be parties in the Battelle Savannah River Alliance contract; and finally, the rental revenue if SRNL/BSRA is the occupant is entirely reliant upon the vagaries of federal budgeting.
8. There is the alternative of building the facility and then gifting it to USCA, as I suggested three months ago and wrote about here.
Another option is to return the money to Aiken County and allow the County to handle the project; The likelihood of the old hospital property becoming available again is increasing every day. That property is an ideal place to situate this facility, and is most frequently named by area residents who support the project but not its location or its management by an organization lacking public accountability.
A third option is to use the funds for more serious needs. I wrote to Representative Bamberg about this situation. Bamberg County, which is most often downwind of SRS but draws minimal economic benefits from its proximity, only received one-half the funds from the settlement as this project alone. Considering the recent devastation from the tornado, that is one SRS near-neighbor that could use some redevelopment funds.
Jackson, New Ellenton and Williston combined received only about one-third as much as the SRNL project. They too have serious infrastructure needs that could be met.
9. Public money should not be used to build private, commercial office buildings in a high rent district like Downtown Aiken, even if the prospective owner is half nonprofit and half for profit, like the Aiken Corporation/LED arrangement. These funds should be dedicated entirely to the public good; like most of the SRS/plutonium settlement funds have been.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter,
Don Moniak