Project Pascalis Transparency Index

Click above of view full size

The City of Aiken’s Project Pascalis was announced to the general public on March 17, 2021 when the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) authorized “its chairman and the city’s development director to negotiate and execute, when the time comes, a cost-sharing agreement for ‘Project Pascalis,’ a potentially massive commercial-development venture.” (1) 

In its announcement, the AMDC wrote it had “identified and recruited a well-capitalized and successful real estate investor interested in partnering and exploring one or more potential commercial development projects.” (2) AMDC officials told the Aiken Standard “a Project Pascalis plan for the public to review and critique is expected within months, after the cost-sharing agreement is finalized and the ball gets rolling;” and AMDC Director Tim O’Briant told the paper, “Transparency is key.”

Between March 16, 2021 and May 10, 2022, the AMDC held seventeen scheduled meetings during which they entered into private, Executive Session sixteen times. In total, the Commission spent just over fifty percent of its time in secret deliberations. Between March 16, 2021 and December 3, 2021, just before the first announcement of a developer, the Commission spent close to two-thirds of its meetings in secret deliberations. Prior to this, the percentage of time spent in Executive Session was just under forty. 

While some meetings were held where parts of the project were discussed and debated, public input was not sought until April of this year; with the first meetings involving the entirety of the proposal being held on April 20th. At both meetings, the project presentation lasted for all but fifteen minutes of the scheduled two hours. Public input was abruptly cut off an hour later during the first meeting because of “prior engagements” of the primary developer. 

The AMDC and City of Aiken never publicly announced its “well capitalized and successful investor” of 2021.  We now know the investor was Weldon Wyatt, whose WTC Investments, LLC (agent: Attorney Ray Massey) had abruptly withdrawn, following months of great fanfare, from a similarly size project at the old Aiken hospital. Not surprisingly, Wyatt and his fellow investors in GAC, LLC and WTC Investments, LLC abruptly dropped out of Project Pascalis two short months later, and the cost sharing agreement  was cancelled.(3) 

Instead of announcing Wyatt’s second withdrawal in two years from an anticipated public-private partnership with the City of Aiken, the AMDC secretly solicited other developers, without any public notice as required by law. The Aiken Chamber of Commerce, whose President is an AMDC Commissioner, secretly took “assignment” of the seven downtown properties proposed for the project, and for which WTC Investments, LLC had a purchase and sale agreement with the property owners. 

Three months later, Aiken City Council approved a $9.6 million bond issuance to finance AMDC property purchases. In early November, 2021, the AMDC finalized those purchases; and the Chamber of Commerce was reimbursed $135,000 of nonrefundable earnest deposits, just as it had reimbursed WTC’s earnest money in May when it took “assignment” of the properties. 

Throughout most of 2021, the AMDC and the City of Aiken never publicly disclosed that: 

  • Weldon Wyatt and his fellow investors were involved in Project Pascalis and were planning to demolish the Hotel Aiken and adjacent properties; 
  • the AMDC was involved with negotiations with a second developer 
  • the Chamber of Commerce held nearly $10 million in property while the AMDC sought funding for the properties. 

That is how much “Transparency is Key” to the City of Aiken as it pertains to Project Pascalis. 

_____________________

(1) https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/financial/aiken-panel-moves-forward-with-major-development-endeavor-dubbed-project-pascalis/article_209074f6-8760-11eb-ad67-2f45ba848325.html

(2) https://aikenmdc.org/2021/10/18/amdc-announces-work-on-project-pascalis/

(3) https://aikenmdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Pre-development-cost-sharing-GAC-LLC-pascalis.pdf

*Credit due to “Harper’s Index” 

Reminder of the Day: The AMDC Cites the Law, Then Sets its Own Rules

(Revised from the June 29, 2022 version)
See also ”Footnote on Revised Version”

As previously reported, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) has embarked on a $75+  million project involving the demolition and reconstruction of a substantial chunk of downtown Aiken. In pursuing this project, the AMDC has circumvented community development law (Reminder of the Day, June 20, 2022). 

Now, in a remarkable development, Aiken City Council will soon attempt to amend the city’s municipal code because the AMDC’s bylaws, adopted in December 2020, are not in compliance with the city ordinance governing the commission. At issue is the fact that the AMDC has voting members (Commissioners) who may not be legally eligible to be on the Commission. If any Commissioners are not residents of the City of Aiken, and it appears at least two are not, the legitimacy of past AMDC actions is questionable. 

In a nutshell, Chapter 11 of the City of Aiken’s municipal code states that AMDC voting commissioners “shall be citizens of the City of Aiken;” whereas the AMDC’s by-laws state that voting members “must have vested residential or business interests within the Commission’s jurisdictional boundaries,” which is the City of Aiken. Bylaws must comply with the law, and these do not at the present time. 

Chapter 11: Aiken Municipal Development Commission 

In August, 2019 Aiken City Council approved Chapter 11 of its municipal code, creating the Aiken Municipal Development Commission. While citing Title 31, Chapter 10 of SC law (1) as the governing statute for its existence, the ordinance also established residency requirements and term limits. Amended in September 2020 to add three more voting members and reclassify city councilpersons as “ex-officio” non-voting members, the ordinance reads: 

The redevelopment commission established by this article shall consist of nine voting members. Nine commissioners shall be citizens of the City of Aiken who shall be appointed by city council. The three members who are appointed to replace the currently serving city council members shall serve an initial term of one year and the six appointed commissioners who are currently serving shall serve an initial term of two years. Thereafter, all commissioners shall serve for two years. The city manager will serve as an ex-officio non-voting member of the redevelopment commission.

The redevelopment commission established by this chapter shall exercise its powers within the city limits of the City of Aiken.

From Gregg Highway to Hitchcock Woods: The AMDC Strays From Its Mandate

Aiken’s municipal code has not prevented the AMDC from delving into business outside the city limits, such as a housing development on Gregg Highway. 

Nor has State community development law prevented the AMDC to stray outside its authority. That law restricts the AMDC’s authority to “conservation areas” that contain at least three precursors to blight, and “blighted areas” that contain at least five elements of blight. Yet, the AMDC has participated in greenfield projects on Whiskey Road such as the new senior apartments; and in one meeting actually discussed the marketing of Hitchcock Woods, with one commissioner commenting it is “underutilized.” Fortunately, better sense prevailed and that misguided discussion about private, wild, undeveloped lands was tabled. 

The “Scrivener’s Error.” 

But talk pales in comparison to action, and one action undertaken by the AMDC was to draft and adopt bylaws in December 2020 that were not compliant with Chapter 11. On Monday, June 27, I asked AMDC Director Tim O’Briant “how did the AMDC adopt bylaws that do not correspond to the municipal ordinance,” specifying two discrepancies: 

  1. The residency requirement in the governing municipal code vs the residency and vested interest requirement in the by-laws; and 
  2. The two year terms in the municipal code versus the four year terms in the by-laws. 

I then wrote: 

Chapter 11 of the municipal code was amended once to allow for nine voting members, with three replacing councilpersons who were then reclassified as ex-officio members. Why hasn’t the ordinance been amended to reflect the bylaws? And why were bylaws adopted that contain provisions contrary to an approved ordinance?

NOTE: Click text blocks below to view larger images
From Chapter 11 of the City of Aiken municipal code
From the AMDC bylaws

Mr. O’Briant responded by email a day later, and also cc’ed the answer to the Aiken City Manager and Clerk and one daniel.plyler@smithrobinsonlaw.com.

According to the city, a “scrivener’s error” is at fault, and Aiken City Council will now consider an amendment to the law because the bylaws are noncompliant. Council will be arguing that its intent in 2019 was to include non residents with “vested business interests.” No evidence to support this “intent” was provided. The email reads, in full: 

Don,

You have pointed out an error that requires correction in the Aiken City Code. Chapter 11 as approved and added in 2019, and upon which the bylaws were based, required the following.

Sec. 11-2. – Membership; terms of members. The redevelopment commission established by this article shall consist of nine members, three commissioners shall be city council members and six commissioners shall be appointed by city council. The three city council members shall serve an initial term of one year and the six appointed commissioners shall serve an initial term of two years. Thereafter, all commissioners shall serve for two years.  The city manager will serve as an ex-officio non-voting member of the redevelopment commission.

As you state, in 2020 Chapter 11 was amended for the sole purpose of removing council members as non-voting ex officio members of the body and replacing them with three additional appointees to be nominated by the Commission and ratified by City Council. There was no discussion by City Council regarding the addition of a citizenship requirement as a part of that amendment, nor is there evidence of legislative intent to do so.

The bylaws state, ‘The Commission shall be composed of nine voting Commissioners who have vested residential or business interest within the Commission’s jurisdictional boundaries.’ That accurately reflects the intent of Council. The addition of the words ‘commissioners shall be citizens of the City of Aiken,’ was a scrivener’s error following the verbal motion to amend that has persisted until today.

As a corrective action, City Council will consider an amendment and correction to the published text of Section 11-2 in the near future. Thank you for calling this to our attention. As far as the terms of office go, the AMDC has been observing two-year terms as stated in the statute and just had its first expirations and election of new officers in June of 2022. The bylaws will be amended to comport with the statute and actual practice.

Regards,
Tim O’Briant

If the ordinance is changed to allow non-residents to determine the fate of the City of Aiken, then every member of Aiken County should be eligible since we all have a vested interest in the business of the county seat and major medical and service center. 

In response to that email, I replied with the following questions: 

  • How many voting members are not city residents? 
  • How legitimate are their past votes? 
  • Where is the evidence of intent? 
  • What constitutes a “vested business interest?” If the law is going to be changed does that not also have to be defined? 
  • Were the bylaws reviewed by the City Attorney to insure compliance with the law? 

Any response is pending. 



_____________________

(1) https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t31c010.php