The Agenda-Setting Aiken Corporation

Some City of Aiken decisions are first made by the Aiken Corporation before formal approval by City Council. Most recently, a $250,000 no-bid contract was awarded to the Aiken Corporation by Aiken City Council three months after the Aiken Corporation hired its own contractor to pursue the downtown Savannah River National Laboratory project.

In addition, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh committed to paying for sewer and water infrastructure for a downtown housing development ten months before it was presented to City Council; and agreed to give away the right-of-way on a portion of Lancaster Street to the Aiken Corporation, without formal Council approval.

(Update: Council members Lessie Price and Gail Diggs did resign from Aiken Corporation at the end of March, 2023; leaving no representation from the City on the Aiken Corporation Board of Directors.)

by Don Moniak

April 7, 2023

With the exception of Aiken City Council members Lessie Price and Gail Diggs, who recently expressed their intentions to resign from the Aiken Corporation Board of Directors, the Aiken Corporation Board has no elected officials. Unlike the soon to be defunct Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), the Aiken Corporation is not a distinct, incorporated, separate body politic authorized to conduct any munipical policy or decision-making. Yet it does.

On March 8, 2023, The Aiken Corporation Executive Committee made two decisions affecting its downtown Aiken interests, which now intersect even more closely with the City’s downtown property interests. According to the meeting minutes of the City of Aiken’s preferred non-profit, charitable organization:

1. “Motion was made by Ms. Martha Lockhart and seconded by Mr. Norman Dunagan to appoint a seven -member committee to oversee Aiken Corporation/LED’s role in their downtown development projects. Motion unanimously approved.”

2. After a one hour Executive Session, a “motion was made by Mr. Pat Cunning and seconded by Mr. Sam Erb to accept the proposed Professional Services Agreement with the City of Aiken.” The agreement names the Aiken Corporation as “The Developer” for the pre-development phase of the proposed Savannah River National Laboratory (SNRL) downtown off-site office complex ( presently being referred to as Project Labscalis).

The seven-member downtown sub-committee is composed of Chamber of Commerce President David Jameson, Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee member Charlie Hartz, City of Aiken Planning Commissioner Sam Erb, Pat Cunning, Karen Daly, Aiken Corporation Chair Arthur “Buzz” Rich, and Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee Chair Jason Rabun; who is also the Vice-Chairman of the City of Aiken Planning Commission.

Listed as an attendee, via phone, at the meeting was City Councilwoman Lessie Price. There is no record of her recusal from the vote to accept the proposed Professional Services Agreement with the City of Aiken. One month prior, at the Aiken Corporations’ February 8th Executive meeting, Price and fellow Councilwoman Gail Diggs were present for a vote to “sign an agreement with the City of Aiken to share in the cost of hiring McMillan, Pazdan & Smith Architecture” for the Labscalis project. Aiken Corporation secretly hired the firm in December 2022.

Listed as a guest at the February 8th meeting was Linda Johnson, President of the Historic Aiken Foundation (HAF), who endorsed the SNRL project shortly after the city announced its plans. HAF Board Member Luis Rinaldini, who is also a plaintiff in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit against Project Pascalis has also stated he “is personally a big supporter of the (SRNL) project.”

Council Approval of the Aiken Corporation’s Labscalis Contract

On March 13th, Councilwomen Price and Diggs (who was not at the March 8th meeting) did recuse themselves from the City Council vote to enter into the Professional Services Agreement with the Aiken Corporation—a no-bid contract worth up to $250,000. The contract also mandates the Aiken Corporation hire a lawyer to negotiate leases with third parties like the Savannah River National Laboratory.

The leases will be on at least two properties that are part of the Pascalis properties obtained by the AMDC in November 2021 with tax-payer monies funded by a general obligation bond issuance that has left the City $9.5 million in debt. The Aiken Chamber of Commerce played a critical role in the property deal, writing an earnest money check for $135,000 to take assignment of the $9.5 million Purchase and Sale Agreements between Weldon Wyatt’s WTC Investments, LLC (Agent: Ray Massey) and the Shah and Anderson families.

The March 13th vote passed unanimously, 4-0, as Mayor Rick Osbon also recused himself due to his personal business conflict of interest regarding the presence of Warneke Cleaners on soon to be city-owned property.

The contract now allows an organization dominated by Chamber of Commerce members to control property which the Chamber played an instrumental role in procuring on behalf of the AMDC and the City of Aiken. No Chamber members recused themselves from the February 8th or March 8th Aiken Corporation votes—unlike former AMDC commissioner David Jameson who recused himself on the November 9, 2021 AMDC vote to purchase the properties. (1)

This pattern is the reverse of past decisions by Council members. On August 5, 2020, Ms. Price and fellow councilmembers Ed Girardeau and Ed Woltz abstained from an Aiken Municipal Development Commission vote to allow “the Municipal Development Commission (to) write a letter to City Council asking them to take the Aiken Hotel off the Aiken Historic Register and address the condition of the Aiken Hotel and its renovation.”

After the three City Council members decided to abstain or recuse from AMDC votes that might come before City Council, the ordinance defining the AMDC’s membership requirements was changed to remove Council members from the commission.

City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh and City Councilwoman Kay Brohl also attended the March 8th meeting. In his supporting memorandum on the March 13th Council vote, Mr. Bedenbaugh omitted the fact that the Aiken Corporation had already voted to accept the contract. During discussion of the agenda item, Ms. Brohl did not acknowledge her presence at March 8th meeting.

Aiken Corporation Decides, City Council Follows

The $250,000, no-bid, Aiken Corporation contract with the City fits a pattern, wherein some City of Aiken decisions are first made at Aiken Corporation meetings, and later presented to City Council for approval. Two examples in the past two years include a property deal on Lancaster Street and the South Company development on Union Street known as Union Street Station.

Lancaster Street Right of Way Proposed Giveaway

At the Aiken Corporation’s March 9, 2022, meeting, City Manager Bedenbaugh brought up an item of new business, the transfer of property on Lancaster Street to the Aiken Corporation—once the City obtained the property from the SC Department of Transportation (SCDOT):

Mr. Bedenbaugh reported that the SCDOT plans to transfer the right- of-way of Lancaster Street between Barnwell Avenue and Edgefield Avenue to the City of  Aiken. Once it is transferred, the City will deed the property to the Aiken Corporation for potential development. Chairman Rich reported that he believes the property is potentially large enough to build five or more residences and that the Corporation has already been contacted by a potential developer to either buy or develop the property.”

Two months later, the minutes read: 

Chairman Rich reported that the City is still waiting on SCDOT to turn over the property to them. Once that happens, the City will donate to Aiken Corporation. Based on the layout of the property, approximately 10 houses could be built.  Aiken Corporation needs to decide on what to do with the property, whether to build on it or sell it.” 

The July 2022  minutes read: 

Mr. Stuart Bedenbaugh reported that he has the paperwork 
from DOT stating that the property has been transferred to the City and he will include on the City Council’s July agenda to transfer the strip of land on Lancaster to the Aiken Corp.”


In August 2022 the deed was reported to be enroute to the City, but no updates on the Lancaster Street giveaway have occurred since. The Aiken County land database does not show any change in property ownership on that block. (2) The impact of ~3,000 citizen signatures on the Do It Right! Alliance legal petition to prohibit a similar property giveaway on Newberry Street on the stalled Lancaster Street process is unknown.

The corner of Barnwell Avenue and Lancaster Street showing the Right of Way in question. (Photo by Don Moniak)

The Union Street Station Housing Development Utilities Subsidy

At the October, 13, 2021, Aiken Corporation meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh committed the city to funding the water and sewer costs for the South Company’s proposed Union Street Station development on Union Street adjacent to Gyles Park— for which the Aiken Corporation had been offering assistance since January of 2021. (3) The minutes read:

Mr. Cunning asked if the City committed to providing water and sewer to the properties. City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh stated yes, the City will provide water and sewer.”

The Aiken Corporation continued discussing the development and the development progressed. The “First Reading of an Ordinance Approving A Development Agreement with The South Company” was brought before City Council ten months later, on August 8, 2022. In his supporting memorandum, City Manager Bedenbaugh wrote, in part, about the “Union Street Station” development:

As part of our staff review of the project, we determined the existing water and sewer lines in the area must be replaced to provide adequate service to the new development and the surrounding neighborhood.”

No mention was made of the Aiken Corporation’s role in the process; and Councilwoman Price and Diggs, who were Aiken Corporation Board members at the time, voted with the rest of Council to unanimously approve the ordinance on both August 8th and again on the Second Reading on August 22, 2022. Councilwoman Price actually made the motion on August 22, which was seconded by Councilwoman Diggs.

One notable portion of the agreement (4) to provide the South Company up to $169,749 in taxpayer funds to provide water and sewer for six single-family housing units is:

The Developer shall promptly and fully comply with all regulations and ordinances of the  City applicable to the Project to include landscaping and signage ordinances with the written exception of any variances agreed to and approved by the City. “

On December 21, 2022, City of Aiken Stormwater Administrator Samantha Pollack issued a cease and desist order to Ed Dudley of Union Street Station due to the lack of a stormwater permit. The order read:

This stop work order is being served based on a site visit conducted on December 21, 2022 in which unauthorized grading has been observed, no sediment and erosion controls are in place, and no NOI has been submitted to the City of Aiken.”

At the next Aiken Corporation meeting, the incident was discussed, and the minutes read:

Chairman Rich reported that he sent an email to Mr. South’s attorney, 
Morris Rudnick, stating that he would rather discuss matters with him instead of Mr. South. He  sent Mr. Rudnick a list of items that need to be completed. There is a cease and desist order sign  on the door of the house on Union Street. It was suggested to leave the project on hold until the items are addressed on the list.”


The cease and desist order from City of Aiken officials has not been raised during any meetings of the Aiken City Council that approved a $169,749 subsidy to a downtown developer.

Union Street Station housing development on December 21, 2022. Photo in City of Aiken Cease and Desist Order


Footnotes:

(1) The meeting minutes for the November 9, 2021 AMDC meeting include the following statements regarding the AMDC resolution to “accept assignment of options to purchase real property from the Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce in connection with Project Pascalis.”

AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant stated: “The Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce and their Executive Committee stepped in and agreed to hold those options and make available the sum of $135,000 to pay the earnest money on the contract. Today this resolution will repay the Chamber of Commerce for their advance for the options to purchase the property.”

The motion was approved by the Commission, with Mr. Verenes and Mr. Jameson abstaining from participating in the discussion and voting on the resolution.”

(2) The Aiken County property database still shows the Lancaster Street parcel as having no ownership, like SCDOT Right of Ways elsewhere in the City.

The City of Aiken has proposed donating this strip of undeveloped right of way on Lancaster Street, in the City’s Parkway District, to the Aiken Corporation for a housing development—necessitating the removal of most of the trees.



(3) On August 11, 2021, the minutes show the following vote taken:

Chairman Rich made a motion seconded by Sam Erb for the Aiken Corporation to purchase the property from the  South’s for the sum of $90,000.00. South would then be given an exclusive option for a 24 month  period after the sale to repurchase the property at the sum of $17,500 per lot with the requirement  that the lots be purchased in numerical order, 1-6. They would be required to purchase the first lot within four months. South would also be required to finish all land layout as required by the  City and to have a final recorded subdivision plat before closing. The motion was unanimously  approved with the abstention of Tim Simmons. “

According to the Aiken County property data base, the property is still owned by

(4) The Agreement with the South Company is on Pages 71-81 of the August 22, 2022 City Council Agenda Packet.


7 thoughts on “The Agenda-Setting Aiken Corporation”

  1. I have yet to hear a true description of what and how Aiken Corporation is associated with City Council members. We seem to be being lead down the garden path by Aiken Corporation and City Council seems to blindly approve suggestions by Aiken Corporation w/o much research of their own and with little input
    From taxpayers. I am hopeful that with a new Mayor in place, that we consider asking for dissolution of Aiken Corporation

    1. Thank you for reading, Linda. The Aiken Chronicles will continue to publish articles exploring the relationship and history between the Aiken Corp and the City.

  2. Mr. Moniak has exposed more shocking evidence that there is indeed an incestuous, conspiratorial mob running the City of Aiken government — aided and abetted by non-governmental actors including Chamber of Commerce officials . There seems to be no limit to the hubris and pomposity of the members of the mob.

    “Commitment to transparency” as promised by Councilwoman Price and other officials is a sick joke. Nirvana for them would be no member of the public (citizens/taxpayers) ever commenting on or asking questions about their activities.

    The AIMMM principle is reaffirmed by the mob’s actions — Arrogance, Ignorance, Maladroitness, Mendacity, Maleficence.

  3. Aiken Corp is a gaslight surrogate for the City Council. By placing responsibility for preliminary downtown development in this entity, the Council has created another AMDC, totally under their control. The fact that this new arrangement was hammered out in executive session only proves that the Council has no intention of involving the taxpayers in our collective future. This is autocracy in a small town and nothing will change until we rid ourselves of these self-important clowns. To add insult to injury, we have, once again, the presence of David Jameson on the Aiken Corp Labscalis decision making team. I don’t see any evidence that an A Team has been assembled, only a rehash of the same Pascalis drones.

    1. Trust the City Government, they said. We will do it right, they said. How long has this been inthe works? Makes me sick!
      The same people doing the same things. Aiken Corporation is just one more extention of the City government. That’s not saying much.

  4. Wow………so this means that Councilwoman Price knew that at the last City Council meeting (March 27th) when the voting body was already reduced to 5 due to conflicts the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem Woltz had on the agenda item to dissolve the AMDC (now themselves as City Council) that the Aiken Corp had already picked themselves as the developer.
    The Labscalis formerly known as Pascalis properties were being transferred back to the City Council (themselves and who they were voting as that night) by way of dissolution of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission AMDC also now known as the City Council…………and City Councilwoman Price (who was also an Aiken Corp Member and AMDC member) took over the meeting for that agenda item as The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem recused due to conflicts. So not only did she vote on Feb 8th but she couldn’t really recall at the earlier meeting but she did recuse that night of the night of March 13th regarding the contract with the Aiken Corp as did Councilwoman Diggs. …….but the meeting of March 27th, however, neither of them did when it came time to vote on the dissolution of the AMDC which would transfer properties back to the city……. which they had already entered a contract with the Aiken Corp (as the City) and those two voted on that as Aiken Corp Members but not as Aiken City Council members…….. and now we learn that Price was instrumental as an Aiken Corp member just weeks before in also picking the developer for the ill-begotten properties (The Aiken Corp)…….. what, was RPM busy?

    When you brought up the Feb 8th Aiken Corp meeting and conflict that night (March 27th City Council) they scurried off into executive session and came back and voted anyway. Price did say they would be resigning lol (two had already voted once as Aiken Corp members and one appears to have voted twice) but sure right after this vote as City Council members (because without them there was no quorum) we will resign as Aiken Corp members. You really can’t make this up. They (as City Council members) essentially voted to transfer properties back to themselves that they had already chosen the developer for (as Aiken Corp members )and the City had already voted to go into an agreement with the Aiken Corp on properties they didn’t own yet as the city but owned as the AMDC. Do I have this right?
    They admitted the conflict by recusing on March 13th and they said they would resign from the Aiken Corp but voted anyway on the 27th as City Council members.

    Then came the City’s attempt at damage control a few days later which was another type of conflicted as you pointed out,,,,
    Paragraph One states the vote was to abolish the AMDC and turn over all AMDC-owned real estate and financial assets to the City of Aiken;” while paragraph three alleges the “the proposed Council ordinance does not involve any City transfer of property or assets to the Aiken Corporation.” This implies the issue is ownership of property, whereas the issue is financial interest deriving from the property.

    Don, that line bears repeating…….as many of the council members appeared not to understand what you were pointing out.
    ” This implies the issue is ownership of property, whereas the issue is financial interest deriving from the property”,

    and then you paired it with the SC Commission on ethics laws on your earlier post which they should know but I suspect they asked City Attorney Smith for his advice on conflicts (there’s a joke in there somewhere) during that executive session prompted by your comments. They did not put into their motion why they were going into executive session though.

    No public official, public member, or public employee may knowingly use his official office, membership, or employment to obtain an economic interest for himself, a family member, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated.”
    As you pointed out the Aiken Corp is poised to make a fortune on this deal which had no bids.
    The Aiken Corp votes were done regarding the City and not the AMDC so it looks like maybe they had a heads up that the city had no intention of keeping the AMDC as the second reading to dissolve it isn’t until this Monday……….. yet they made plans via the City regarding those AMDC owned properties even before it was on the agenda to dissolve the AMDC huh?
    Don’t worry though about ten minutes after coming out of executive session on March 27th Councilwoman Price reaffirmed their commitment to transparency.

Leave a Reply

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