The City of Aiken’s Information Games: Part II

Post-Publication Redaction  of the AMDC/RPM Contract

by Don Moniak

November 21, 2022

Within twenty-four hours of the publication of “Downtown Aiken Half Priced Sale,” the December 3, 2021 Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) between the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) and Project Pascalis developer RPM Development Partners, LLC (RPM) was removed from City of Aiken’s document repository. The withdrawal of the document from public view occurred in spite of the agreement —which was amended as late as June 2022 — being terminated by RPM on September 14, 2022 and rendered null and void two weeks later by the AMDC.

The December 3, 2021 agreement was publicly available, within a file titled “11302021 RES Municipal Dev. Com,” between October 21 and November 10, 2022. The file was within an AMDC folder called “other records” in the City of Aiken’s Laserfiche/Ecodocs records repository.  Amendments to the agreement remain an AMDC secret.

The file contained both the AMDC resolution to sell the properties and the Purchase and Sale Agreement. At 9:41 a.m. on November 11th the file was removed from view, less than one day after its availability had been publicized in The Aiken Chronicles.

“113022021 RES Municipal Dev. Com” was made publicly available on 10/21/22 and removed 11/11/22

The document detailed the conditions for the sale of the commission’s seven Pascalis project properties. The proposed sale price of $5 million was nearly half of the $9.5 million the commission paid on November 9, 2021.

The contract also allowed for a fifty percent cost reimbursement for project design; and set a price of $3 million for an AMDC buyback of the proposed city-owned conference center and parking garage:

Seller, or its designee, shall be required to purchase the parking garage and conference center components thereof upon completion of the Redevelopment Project for a purchase price calculated based on ( i) Three Million and 00/ 100 Dollars ($ 3,000, 000. 00), representing the portion of the Purchase Price hereunder allocated to the land for the parking garage and conference center, plus (ii) the actual design, permitting and construction costs ( pursuant to a fixed price agreement
therefore) of the parking garage and conference center and a development fee to Purchaser equal to 5% of such costs
.”

A $3 million AMDC buyback meant a net cost to the developer of $2 million for the purchase of the Hotel Aiken, the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens Street, and the portion of other properties dedicated to an apartment complex.

The AMDC signature page was signed by commission chairman
Keith Wood. The RPM signature page was signed by RPM investor and legal agent Ray Massey, who is one of Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith’s partners.

The commission obtained the money via a grant from the City of Aiken, which in turn raised the funds by borrowing it via a municipal bond issuance approved by ordinance on August 23, 2022. Gary Smith, acting as City Attorney and council parliamentarian during the bond issuance, was responsible for preparing the ordinance, and signed his approval.

The signature page for the $10 million bond issuance ordinance.



The day before the contract with RPM was signed, Wood expressed concern in an email to other commissioners about having Smith’s name on a news release announcing the agreement, writing,

Do we have to mention the Massey law firm as written? I think having Smith’s name in the news release will raise unwanted questions.”

No justification has been given for the post-publication redaction. RPM terminated the agreement on September 14, 2022; and the commission voted unanimously on September 29, 2022, to declare the contract “null and void.” 

No other known purchase and sale agreements involving city property are considered too sensitive to publicly disclose—-even if that were an option. Examples of questionable real estate deals that were public knowledge before closing, and were open to public debate, include:

The agreement to sell the city’s Mattie Hall property to Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes law firm associate Scott Patterson. As reported in The City of Aiken’s Mattie Hall Property, the land the city sold for $150,000 was placed on the market for $700,000 two weeks after closing.

The agreement in January 2020 to sell the city’s Finance Building at 135 Laurens Street and the associated parking lot at 130 Pendleton St, SW for a collective $1.3 million to local investor Weldon Wyatt. As reported in The Cleaners, Wyatt then sold 135 Laurens St, SW one month later to SRP Credit Union for $1.3 million, and the parking lot a year later to R&O, LLC (Agent: Rick Osbon) for $500,000. 

The only previous justifications for keeping the RPM contract sealed, and for continuing to withhold Project Pascalis procurement records, are two South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions.

Exemption five states the government may withhold documents “Incidental to proposed contractual arrangements and documents of and documents incidental to proposed sales or purchases of property.”  
(SC 30-4-40(5)).

Although the exemption ends “once a contract is entered into or the property is sold or purchased,” the law also allows for continued exemption “until the deed is executed, but this exemption applies only to those contracts of sale or purchase where the execution of the deed occurs within twelve months from the date of sale or purchase.” 

As reported on October 24, 2022, former AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant (1) argued that since the deed was never executed, the contract remained exempt from disclosure. Since November 1, 2022, AMDC Chairman Keith Wood (2) has declined to answer requests to review commission records.

Exemption nine states the governmment may withhold “Memoranda, correspondence, documents, and working papers relative to efforts or activities of a public body and of a person or entity employed by or authorized to act for or on behalf of a public body to attract business or industry to invest within South Carolina.” (SC 30-4-40(9)).

These records are not exempt after the offer to attract an industry or business is accepted and the “public announcement of the project or finalization of any incentive agreement, whichever occurs later.” 

The AMDC is relying upon the strictest interpretation of the state’s open records law to continue to withhold key information pertaining to Project Pascalis. But by any reasonable assessment, the continued secrecy surrounding the December 3, 2021, RPM Purchase and Sale Agreement, and subsequent amendments, is another indication that the AMDC plays by its own set of rules. After spending more than than $10 million of taxpayer funds to pursue Project Pascalis, the commission is essentially arguing that Project Pascalis contracts and procurement records are exempt from public disclosure because their project failed.

_______________


Footnotes


(1) Tim O’Briant was as an editor at the Aiken Standard from 2000-2016 and once testified to the South Carolina General Assembly on behalf of FOIA reform. After spending a year as an editor with The Brunswick News, in 2017 he was hired by the City of Aiken as its Communications Manager; and in 2019 was promoted to Director of the City’s new Economic Development Department. In November, 2021, he received a certification as an Economic Development Professional from the SC Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Institute.

From March 2021, to September 2022 he was the face and spokesperson for the Pascalis project, and was one of two people authorized to negotiate with developers and sign checks for commission expenditures.

O’Briant is no longer listed on the list of AMDC staff at aikenmdc.org. His unannounced removal from the commission’s staff followed unproven accusations by AMDC members Keith Wood and Chris Verenes that unnamed staff had deceived Wood into signing the December 3, 2021 contract with RPM prior to the release of a Request for Proposals. Details on this series of events can be found in The Project Pascalis “RFP.”

He reportedly remains employed as the City of Aiken’s Economic Development Director. As detailed in Part One of The City of Aiken’s Information Games, in that capacity he led efforts to obstruct access to Project Pascalis records.

(2) Keith Wood is an original AMDC member. He was appointed to the AMDC in early 2020 and has served as the Chairman of the AMDC since September, 2020. Along with Tim O’Briant, he was one of two people authorized to negotiate with Project Pascalis developers and authorize expenditures.

Wood is employed by Amentum Corporation as Vice President of Marketing and Communications in the company’s Nuclear Security Group.



7 thoughts on “The City of Aiken’s Information Games: Part II”

  1. Attorney Invoice for just Pope for the AMDC in Nov of 2021 which included “mark up of PSA document” was $19,586.84 total.
    That invoice also included on 11/02/2021
    Review Purchase and Sale Agreement. Conference Call with the City to do the same and charged us 1.80 hours.

    In addition to this costing taxpayers a fortune for the bond…..the Bond Counsel ain’t cheap but that line item charge shows us the City was informed on what was on the elusive PSA before it was signed so they too were prepared to have a half price sale!

    Seems to me the AMDC was nothing more than the trojan horse under the guise of blight ( and morality) if you can believe that, to deliver Piggy.

  2. I think it is time that the SC Attorney General’s office got involved reviewing all activities of The AMDC and the City Council.

    1. RE: “I think it is time…”
      That “time” is far in the rear-view mirror of the history of Aiken City Government’s scandalous and costly behavior. Regrettably, it is wishful thinking to imagine that AG Wilson will ever get involved. That will likely never happen given statutory constraints, and the warm and cozy relationships that prevail among the powerful and unprincipled politicos that occupy seats at all levels of SC governance.

    2. I agree with this, with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the AMDC eluding to unethical and illegal issues. ..

      Mr. Moniak, how can we call for the SC Attorney’s office and/or the SC Ethics Commission to investigate? Couple this, with the Mayor and city Attorney recusing themselves from the North Aiken development recently covered by the Aiken Standard? Something is connected and smells….Perhaps they have a financial interest?

      Bottom line, the City of Aiken has HUGE leadership issues

      1. Lagree. The Ethics Commission is investigating, as at least two complaints have been filed.

        The recusals from the North Aiken development were proper. The Mayor serves on a Board with one of the owners (Todd Glover, who is also Executive Director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina) and the City Attorney’s law partner worked on the real estate deal.

        The City Attorney’s partners are so active that it is difficult for him to work on much that is not related to his law firm. For that simple reason city taxpayers should ask why not just go back to an in house City Attorney, as is already allowed by City Ordinance?

Leave a Reply to donaldmoniak Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *