What is the Status on the Pascalis Developers?

by Don Moniak
September 13, 2022

The developers for the $100 milllion plus, city-led downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis have been missing from public view for nearly three months. The last public meeting attended by members of the Raines and Lat Purser Companies was June 21, 2022. 

On June 29, 2022 a demolition application for AMDC-owned Newberry Hall, Warneke Cleaners, the McGhee Building, Taj Aiken Restaurant, and the Holley House was withdrawn. (1) No progress reports have been issued since that time. 

Raines and Lat Purser comprise two-thirds of RPM Development Partners, LLC, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission’s (AMDC) choice for the sale, demolition, and redevelopment of seven properties purchased by the AMDC in November, 2021. Raines and Lat Purser lead the entirety of the design and demolition application efforts.

The other third of the group is led by Ray Massey. Massey is the agent for RPM; but his otherwise anonymous group has no reported large-scale development capabilities. Massey is also the agent and lead investor for Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC, which owns the former State Farm office parcel on Newberry Street, a vital part of the Pascalis Project also slated for demolition prior to the application withdrawal. 

RPM holds a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with the AMDC that contains a deadline for completing and signing a Master Development Agreement to move forward on the Pascalis project. Claiming the exact deadline date is a subject of litigation, the AMDC has refused to specify the deadline date, which until now has only been vaguely defined as “no later than Summer 2022.”

On September 13th City of Aiken Solicitor Laura Jordan denied a Freedom of Information Act request for a redacted version of the PSA, claiming the entirety of the document is “subject to exemption as it relates to the sale of the property and efforts to attract investment. In light of the foregoing, and the fact that the agreement remains under negotiation, the City and AMDC have determined to exempt the requested document from disclosure.” (2)

Following the unexpected September 9, 2021 AMDC meeting and subsequent vote to hold a vote on the future of Project Pascalis the week of September 26, 2022 (3), the following letter was sent to Raines Hospitality Group CEO Grey Raines. 

Mr. Raines, 

1. Has your firm withdrawn from Project Pascalis? 

2. Is the purchase and sale agreement (PSA) with the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) null and void as a result of RPM Development Partners, LLC not reaching a final Master Development Agreement with the AMDC by the deadline specified in the PSA? 

3. If so, does this account for the absence of Raines and RPM from filings (other than a notice of acceptance from yourself) in the July 5, 2022 Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit? 

Today the Aiken Standard reported the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) will hold a vote on the future of Project Pascalis on September 26, 2022. The AMDC nearly ended the project today, but Chamber of Commerce President and AMDC Commissioner David Jameson intervened with an amended motion to postpone a final vote, pending “due diligence.” (4)

The motion by AMDC member Chris Verenes was described by the Standard in part as “declaring a purported contract null and void.” This was a curious, unsubstantiated statement. It is well known there is a purchase and sale agreement between RPM Development Partners, LLC and the AMDC for the seven properties in the Pascalis project demolition and redevelopment zone. 

As I reported on August 29, 2022, the deadline for moving forward on that agreement was approaching or even past: 

“The MDA necessary for any future work appears to be still in negotiations, and time is running short. On December 3, 2021, the AMDC wrote 

‘The initial PSA announced today gives the AMDC and RPM until no later than Summer 2022 to come to terms on a mutually beneficial Master Development Agreement.’ 

No such agreement has been announced, and the AMDC has not replied to a letter asking for the exact deadline date on the PSA, even though this date is not pertinent to the lawsuit.” (5)

Now add to this the following additional facts, and we have all the appearances of a stalemate or an exit by RPM, Raines, and/or Lat Purser:

–RPM and Aiken Alley Holdings have not submitted an updated demolition application to remove Taj Resaurant, the McGhee Building, Warneke Cleaners, and Newberry Hall from the landscape;

— the absence of both RPM and Raines from the lawsuit; and 

—Raines and Lat Purser’s original, June 2021 proposal stated “the AMDC would purchase the property back if no project proceeds due to a lack of action by City/AMDC after 12 months of due diligence.”

After nearly a year of debating this project, Aiken area residents deserve some straight answers, and cannot expect them from the AMDC. Questions 1-3 are simple, yes/no questions you could answer to possibly clarify the situation. Any additional details are always welcome. 

Thank You, 

Donald Moniak
Researcher/Writer
PO Box 112
Vaucluse, SC 29850

____________

FOR REFERENCE

1. “Project Pascalis Demolition Application Withdrawn, Not Postponed.” The Aiken Chronicles, June 30, 2022. 

2. Response to Freedom of Information Act request from Aiken City Solicitor Laura Jordan to Donald Moniak. September 13, 2022. 

3. “A Vote Without a Decision: A Transcript.” The Aiken Chronicles. September 12, 2022. 

4 https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/local-government/aiken-municipal-development-commission-to-vote-sept-26-on-halting-project-pascalis/article_8285619e-307e-11ed-8e20-6f7720c6c480.html?fbclid=IwAR3Vljfn3Yxuco6_yqDIKNIxdwbBbnf00oTVkqmMzTLukCcLV51hV7FkEYg

5 https://aikenchronicles.com/2022/08/29/a-project-pascalis-update/

Best estimates for names of redacted developers for May/June 2021 AMDC Solicitation for Proposals

Aiken City Council Reimplements Citizen Input Rules

by Don Moniak
September 13, 2022

For the first time in anyone’s memory, on September 12, 2022 Aiken City Council placed on its meeting agenda citizen input for issues unrelated to agenda items. Even though Council did not acknowledge the source of the change, they accepted written citizen requests to honor City of Aiken’s municipal code that mandates “nonagenda items from the public” be on the agenda both early and late in the meeting.

Eight citizens took advantage of the new opportunity, raising issues ranging from recreation fees, water quality notifications, the future of the County Courthouse, the lack of a grocery store in walkable distance in the downtown area, the growth of the Aiken airport, and the upcoming Historical Aiken Foundation workshop. 

Prior to this, City Council required citizens to submit a request to speak on nonagenda items, and that request had to be approved.

Comments  can be viewed at 0:26 and 1:12 of the meeting at the City of Aiken’s You Tube channel: 

The following letter to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, cc’ed to City Council, is a followup on the historical significance of the meeting:

Mr. Bedenbaugh, 

At last night’s historical City Council meeting, the agenda was open to comments and questions unrelated to agenda items from citizens in attendance. City of Aiken Municipal Code 2-64, Rules of Order, Rules of Procedure, and Order of Business has long mandated that “nonagenda items from the public” be placed twice on the agenda, yet that requirement, if ever implemented, became lost long ago.

During the first comment period, the question was posed to Council: “When was the last time Agenda Items (3) and (7) were on the Agenda?

At 30:24 of the meeting, Mayor Osbon answered, ” I do not know, it predates all of us,” 

Late in the meeting, council was asked about the origin of the ordinance and you answered “pre-1980.” Maybe your talented IT department could locate the exact source of the ordinance change for the historical record? 

I was unable to locate when the ordinance change occurred, nor any agenda in City of Aiken files in which “nonagenda items from the public” has ever been on the agenda. I did find that from 1955 (when the earliest agenda records are posted) through 1960, #2 in the agenda involved public requests and petitions; and that the language evolved from “citizens who are present” to “consideration of requests and petitions” to “petitions and requests.” Here is a timeline for that period. 

July 7, 1955: Agenda #2 is “Consideration of requests from citizens present who desire to address council.” 

December 12, 1955 to sometime in 1956: Agenda #2 is “Consideration of requests and/or petitions from citizens who are present and who desire to be heard by the council.” In the case of June 4, 1956, even the local Chamber of Commerce was still considered in the citizen category, and was unsurprisingly seeking funding from the City of Aiken— $4500 in this case. 

January 28, 1957: Agenda #2 still mentions “citizens” : “Consideration of Requests and Petitions from Citizens.” 

February 11, 1957: Agenda #2 changes to “Consideration of requests and/or petitions.” , and shortened and changed to “Petitions and Requests” by 1960. 

December 12, 1960: Last agenda with “Petitions and Requests”  as #2 on the agenda. 

January 2, 1961. “Petitions and Requests” moved to # 4 of the Agenda. 

As I stated last night, the September 12, 2022 agenda should be held up as a model for public input and nonagenda items” should be viewed in the context of “Consideration of requests and/or petitions from citizens who are present and who desire to be heard by the council.” As Elections Commission nominee Mike Loftis stated last night, “In any kind of position, when you are talking you are teaching, and when you are listening you are learning.” Viewing the people as “citizens” instead of as “the public” would improve the way Council listens and learns from citizens of the Aiken area. 

Thank you, 
Donald Moniak