Specifically, the AMDC: 

1. Is basing the project on a redevelopment plan approved the year before the first project proposal, and does not include most of the project’s footprint; 
2. Failed to hold a public hearing for that first and only redevelopment plan;
3. Failed to issue a public advertisement for a Request for Proposals (RFP)

Background on Municipal Commissions and Redevelopment

By law, publicly financed economic redevelopment must adhere to Title 31 of the SC Code of Laws.  In regard to Project Pascalis, the most pertinent of these statutes are within Chapter 10, which define the criteria for creating municipal commissions like the AMDC and the rules they must follow. 

Under part 30 of this chapter, municipal commissions like the AMDC can be created by the governing body (City Council) if it finds:

(1) that a blighted area or conservation area exists in whole or in part in such municipality,

(2) that the redevelopment of such areas is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the residents of such municipality.

While the AMDC has broad powers to enact its charge, its “specific” powers defined in Part 90 are to:

 “make (i) plans for carrying out a program of voluntary repair and rehabilitation of buildings and improvements and (ii) plans for the enforcement of laws, codes, and regulations relating to the use of land and the use and occupancy of buildings and improvements, and to the compulsory repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal of buildings and improvements. The commission is further authorized to develop, test, and report methods and techniques, and carry out demonstrations and other activities, for the prevention and elimination of slums and urban blight.”

The One and Only Redevelopment Plan One for Downtown Aiken

The AMDC was created by ordinance in August 2019 by Aiken City Council, but did not meet until May 2020. One of its first orders of business was to review and adopt a Redevelopment Plan already in progress for downtown Aiken, one compliant with Part 100 that defined nine requirements (1) for a finished plan. This plan was described at the first meeting by Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant: 

We have engaged a firm out of Greenville, SC called Muldrow & Associates to do a very small redevelopment plan, essentially surrounding the Regions Bank Building which is now being retrofitted as the new City Hall. It includes the corner of Laurens and Richland. If this group has any thoughts about Hotel Aiken, it would be appropriate to have those discussions. Whether we come up with anything or not, we can’t really get into it if we don’t have a plan that encompasses that area. He noted that the former Regions Bank building is currently being redeveloped as the new City Hall. He said we would like to get input from the Commission on this as well.

From the very beginning, the AMDC was informed that any redevelopment plan must be specific; a plan must “encompass” the area proposed for redevelopment. The Muldrow plan does not address any redevelopment on Newberry Street (which is not a “blighted” area in any sense of the word) nor Park Avenue (also lacking any blight issues); it proposed no changes in street layouts, and it did not propose to relocate a single business. 

In reference to properties east of the Hotel, such as the historic former Johnson Drug Store building, the Muldrow plan specifically states “existing buildings to remain.” All other “redevelopment” is merely streetscape improvements. 

The AMDC adopted the Muldrow plan by a resolution a few months later, but never held its own public hearing as required by Part 100: 

d) The commission shall hold a public hearing prior to its final adoption of a redevelopment plan. Notice of such hearing shall be given fifteen days prior thereto in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality.

This clause functions to avoid burying major projects within larger city business proceedings. But the AMDC took the latter approach by forwarding the plan to Aiken City Council, which shortly thereafter approved it following two “public hearings” held during normal City Council business.

There has been no update or amendments to the plan as required by law, and when asked for the Project Pascalis Redevelopment Plan required by SC 31-10-100, the AMDC provides only a link to the Muldrow prepared plan, titled “Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Aiken,” or “Redevelopment Plan One.”

View the approved plan

The Wyatt Scheme Goes Awry

Even without any Plan Two, the AMDC proceeded to announce the existence of Project Pascalis less than eight months later. Although the AMDC kept the details secret, we now know the initial plan pursued by Weldon Wyatt’s GAC, LLC and facilitated by Wyatt and Attorney Ray Massey’s WTC Investments, LLC was to: 

1. demolish everything on the south side of Richland Avenue between Laurens and  Newberry Streets
2. demolish half of the west side of Newberry Street; 
3. force eight businesses to relocate; and negotiate a deal with Newberry Hall to compensate the owners for lost business during construction and options to operate and purchase the new conference center building; 
4. privatize part of Newberry St. 

The WTC plan involved purchasing the seven properties from two owners, with $7.5 million going to Neel Shah’s various LLCs holding six of the properties; and $2.0 million going to Myrtle Anderson for Newberry Hall. Wyatt pursued a private-public partnership with the AMDC and City of Aiken, then abruptly withdrew from the negotiations and the purchase and sale agreements in May 2021 just two months after the first announcement of Project Pascalis. The AMDC chose to not disclose this change in plans. 

The AMDC Secretly Pursues a New Developer

After Weldon Wyatt’s GAC, LLC withdrew from negotiations for a master agreement with the AMDC, the Chamber of Commerce stepped in and took “assignment” of the properties while the AMDC sought to procure funding to buy them outright. This process was kept secret until November 2021, and was never openly discussed or announced even then. 

Instead of formulating a new redevelopment plan, the AMDC instead sent out solicitations for Request for Proposals to select developers. The entire solicitation remains classified as “confidential” and exempt from FOIA by the City of Aiken, although the AMDC has released a summary document. 

Click to access Pascalis-summary.pdf

However, under Part 110(c) of Title 31, the AMDC was obligated to advertise for bids: 

c) The commission shall, by public notice, published once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality, invite proposals and shall make available all pertinent information to any persons interested in undertaking a purchase of property or the redevelopment of an area or any part thereof.

As reported previously, the AMDC did not advertise for bids until two weeks after announcing the selection of RPM Development Partners, LLC as the Project Pascalis developer, pending the successful negotiation of a master agreement. 

Click to access Pascalis-RFP-Affidavit-of-Publication-of-public-notice-in-Aiken-Standard-12.1320-4872-4968-1416-v.1-002.pdf

This was all kept secret through most of 2021, and the AMDC never sought to update its redevelopment plan as required by law. Even as late as November 4, 2021, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh denied there was any final plan to demolish the Hotel Aiken and chose not to divulge the original demolition plans, or the fact that the AMDC’s purchase and sale agreements only required inspection of two properties — Warneke Cleaners and Taj Aiken Restaurant. 

Board Member Knowles expressed appreciation for the update and inquired as to whether the plans intended to keep Hotel Aiken intact. Mr. Bedenbaugh stated it was too early in the process to know what potential developers may intend for the Hotel Aiken property. — Design Review Board Special Workshop Meeting Minutes, November 4, 2021

To this day, Bedenbaugh refuses to release the full May 2021 solicitation letters and the body of the RFQ that would indicate the original intent of the AMDC. 

The Design Review Board meets in another special workshop tomorrow. The Board should be reminded they have no obligation to act on a proposal that is in clear violation of SC redevelopment law, and every right to demand full transparency from City officials. 

_______________

References

(1) The nine requirements for a finished redevelopment plan are defined in SC31-10-100(c):

c) The commission’s redevelopment plan shall include, without being limited to, the following:
(1) the boundaries of the redevelopment area, with a map showing the existing uses of the real property therein;
(2) a land use plan of the redevelopment area showing proposed uses following redevelopment;
(3) standards of population densities, land coverage, and building intensities in the proposed redevelopment;
(4) a preliminary site plan of the redevelopment area;
(5) a statement of the proposed changes, if any, in zoning ordinances or maps;
(6) a statement of any proposed changes in street layouts or street levels;
(7) a statement of the estimated cost and method of financing redevelopment under the redevelopment plan;
(8) a statement of such continuing controls as may be deemed necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter;
(9) a statement of a feasible method proposed for the relocation of the families displaced.