All posts by donaldmoniak

Aiken County, Development Issues, Elections

Local Politics and Planning in 2025

Leave a comment

A County Comprensive Plan, A City Zoning Ordinance, Another Downtown Aiken Redevelopment Decision and Debate, and City Elections

by Don Moniak
January 10, 2025

Several major developments and events are on 2025’s local political docket. Notable among them are the preparation of a new 10-year Aiken County Comprehensive Plan, the rewrite of City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance, the selection of a buyer and developer of the remaining six Project Pascalis properties downtown Aiken, and municipal elections.

Figure 1. Comprehensive Plan interactive map for public comments. The site is being populated
with recommendations for new parks, transit routes, pedestrian and bicycle routes, requests for
amenities such as grocery stores, concerns over the proliferation of dollar stores, and numerous
other issues.


Aiken County’s 2025-2035 Comprehensive Plan

As described in The Resiliency Element, Aiken County is required by state law to develop a Comprehensive Plan that serves as a guiding document for future development of unincorporated portions of the county. 

The existing 2014-2024 Comprehensive Plan, which was only an amendment to the 2004-2014 plan, has passed its expiration date; but it will have to suffice until a new one is completed. In practice, the current plan did not go into effect until January 2016; it was passed in December 2015 following a one-year public comment period.

The Aiken County Planning Commission (ACPC) is more than half a year behind schedule on preparing the 2025-2035 plan that will, in its words, provide “a framework for how the County will change, through public and private investment, in the next two decades.  The comprehensive planning process provides residents, property owners, merchants, industry, builders and developers a reasonable forecast of the county’s future. The plan is long-range and seeks to address the County’s future needs for housing, economic development, recreation and cultural resources, and transportation facilities. The plan seeks to balance the desire for growth and development with protection and preservation of the County’s unique natural resources.”

Up until the first of this year, there had been no solicitation of citizen input, even though the issue first ended up on the ACPC’s May 2024 agenda—albeit without the required public notice. At County Council’s December 19, 2024 public meeting and the following ACPC meeting on December 21st, a schedule for four public involvement meetings*, as well as a two month public comment period, was announced.

Soon after the public meetings announcement, a Comprehensive Plan website was finally created. The site contains a link to an interactive map (Figure 1) for making specific comments and a general email address, planning@aikencountysc.gov, as an alternative. There is also a community survey with sixteen questions. The comment period runs through February 28, 2025.

So far, a Demographic and Economic Inventory Report and a Market Analysis Report are also available for review and comments.

*The public information sessions are scheduled as follows.

Public Information Session #1
January 14, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Roy Warner Park
6021 Roy Warner Park Ln, Wagener, SC 29164

Public Information Session #2
January 22, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Aiken Senior Life Services
1310 E Pine Log Rd, Aiken, SC 29803

Public Information Session #3
January 27, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Gregg Park Civic Center
1001 A Avenue, Graniteville, SC 29829

Public Information Session #4
January 28, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
North Augusta Community Center
495 Brookside Ave, North Augusta, SC 29841

(At present, no information sessions are scheduled for the more rural areas that surround Silver Bluff and Ridge Spring-Monetta High Schools; while two of the meetings are within incorporated portions of the county. Nor are any daytime sessions or weekend sessions planned.)

Figure 2. Initial schedule for rewrite of the City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance, as explained during
a July 9, 2024 City Council work session. The consulting firm leading the effort has promised
extensive citizen involvement at all phases of the process through a community communications campaign.


City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance/Unified Development Ordinance

The current City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance dates back to 1999. Although numerous amendments such a “tree preservation ordinance” have been incorporated since that time, it is a dated Ordinance with substantial flaws. Unlike a Comprehensive Plan, this is a legally binding document–although one with numerous loopholes such as very wide discretion in the implementation of Planned Residential and Planned Commercial zones.

In January 2024, after two of seven Aiken City Council members endorsed prioritizing a rewrite of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, city staff moved ahead with the project. Seeking public input was not a part of that step forward.

On January 31, 2024, the city’s procurement department issued a Request for Qualifications for a consulting firm specializing in urban planning to undertake leadership of the Zoning Ordinance rewrite.

In June 2024, a review committee consisting of four staff members—the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and two members of the Planning Department—selected the Chicago, Illinois-based urban planning consulting firm of Houseal-Lavigne to facilitate the process. City Council members were absent from the review and selection committee; one that also decided the process would lead to the creation of broader, more standardized Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).

On July 9, 2024, the proposed contract was presented to City Council during a work session. According the consulting firm’s presentation, the first period of “community engagement” was scheduled for late summer and early fall (Figure 2). Houseal-Lavigne’s $228,000 contract (Pages 161-179) was subsequently approved at the July 9th regular meeting.

According to the meeting minutes, prior to any rewrite “a lot of community engagement to get a sense of what (people) like about the ordinance and what (people) feel needs to be fixed moving forward” would occur. Later in the process, a communications plan would ensue that solicits comments on the draft plans.

Six months later, no opportunities for community engagement and citizen involvement have been announced. The existing Ordinance has yet to be subjected to scrutiny. Since the workshops promised during House-Lavigne’s presentation to Council have yet to materialize, it could be safe to assume the process, like the County’s Comprehensive Plan, could continue into 2026–especially if city residents choose to seriously engage in the process.

Figure 3. Six of the original Project Pascalis properties that are up for sale and redevelopment.
The six properties are presently owned by the City of Aiken; whose Municipal Development
Commission purchased them for $7.5 million in November 2021. An additional $2 million was
spent on the Newberry Hall property; which was sold to the lessee in 2024 for $1.125 million.

Downtown Development

The highly controversial downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis, which dominated city politics in 2022, was cancelled by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) on September 29, 2022. After months of inertia followed by indecision, in May 2023 the AMDC was dissolved and ownership of the half-block of commercial properties known as the Pascalis properties reverted to city ownership.

At City Council’s December 11, 2023, regular meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh presented Council with a detailed procurement plan to find a “real estate firm experienced in marketing property for adaptive reuse and renovation” for the Pascalis properties “primarily fronting the southern side of the 200 block of Richland Avenue West.”

Initially, four of the six remaining Pascalis project properties—the McGhee Building, the Taj Aiken restaurant building, the Holley House motel property, and the Hotel Aiken–were in the package. After some discussion, the Warneke Cleaners property was added to the mix and Council agreed to the approach; one that also was met with no public resistance.

The original plan presented to Council and meeting attendees did contain the caveat that the Hotel Aiken and Holley House could be purchased separately. The presented material stated that:

” Other evaluation criteria being equal, preference shall be given to a buyer who will provide a high-quality historic renovation and adaptive reuse for all of the properties listed above collectively. However, a buyer who proposes solely on the 235 Richland Ave W (Hotel Aiken) and 112 Bee Lane SW properties (Holly House) shall not be excluded.”

However, that thoughtful provision was absent from the Request for Qualifications that was issued only one week later. It will be all or nothing for potential developers.

Two firms submitted proposals for the job of marketing the properties, and the Colliers company was selected for the task. By the time Colliers put together a prospectus for potential buyers and developers, the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens Street SW (home of Vampire Penguin and Ginger Bee) had also been added to the bundle of properties (Figure 3); meaning that the same package as Project Pascalis, minus Newberry Hall, was in play.

In November 2024, Colliers representative Tommy Tapp provided a status update to Council; he described how more than twenty interested parties had expressed interest, and eleven tours of the properties for highly interested potential buyers and developers had been completed.

According to the meeting minutes (pages 9-11), Tapp stated that about half of the twelve parties that were interested enough to request tours are hotel developers, and half are apartment/condo developers; with all of them interested in harvesting historic tax credits. He told Council that the prospect of tax credits “is what is driving the project and the numbers.”

Tapp added that “one of the common questions, even from phone calls, is about parking in Aiken. The number one question that everybody has—what about parking and how much parking is available…Everybody is interested in talking about parking garages. That is a common theme that has come up.”

A Request for Proposals was then issued by Collier’s, and offers were due on December 23, 2024. According to Tapp, he would “collect the offers and review them to see if there is anything significantly missing or anything confusing and ask for clarification.” Once that is done, he will turn those over to the City Manager and “the offers will be for the city’s eyes only.”

Tapp had also stated, at the 16:40 mark of the meeting, that this need for discretion was due to “another concern, is their bid going to be kept secret? They don’t want it shopped around in the press or made public because one of the the criteria is ingenuity and creativity and what they can do with the project.”

Even though excessive secrecy was a contributing cause to the demise of Project Pascalis, no City Council members raised any concern about the perceived need for secrecy regarding final bids for a multi-million package of prominent, city-owned properties.

Elections

Since Project Pascalis, a common refrain on social media pages, and elsewhere, has been “We need new leadership.” That sentiment has commonly been accompanied by support for a “smarter growth” strategy that preserves Aiken’s status as one of South Carolina’s most desirable small cities to reside.

This year, City of Aiken residents who seek more change in leadership will have the opportunity to such change a reality; as four of the seven Aiken City Council seats are on the 2025 ballot. Those seats are currently held by Council members Lessie Price (District 2), Ed Girardeau (District 4 ), Ed Woltz (District 6), and Andrea Gregory (District 5). The latter three were all first elected in 2017 and have now served two terms; while Lessie Price has served her Northside district since 1988. No Council member faced a viable challenger in 2021.

However, the potential emergence of any viable candidates who favor divergence from the current status quo remains murky. Although the Mayoral race of 2023 featured three strong candidates, and ultimately an upset of incumbent Mayor Rick Osbon by only 14 votes, Councilwoman Kay Brohl (District 3) faced no opposition during the primary or the general election; while Councilwoman Gail Diggs (District 1) faced a weak challenger whose vote total was only in the double digits.

At the same time, since voter turnout during municipal elections is chronically poor, council members generally receive vote totals in the hundreds, not thousands. For example, in the 2017 Republican primary, Andrea Gregory won with only 220 votes; while Ed Woltz defeated incumbent Councilman Philip Merry with only 240 votes. Turnout in both the primary and general elections was only eight percent. The lesson is that any well organized campaign can stage an upset of an incumbent or establishment candidate.

The Election Schedule that was announced this week (page 395) is as follows:

July 7: Opening of filing for nomination petitions and other filing of
candidates for nomination in municipal political party primaries or conventions.

July 14: Closing of filing of candidates for nomination by political parties.

August 12: Municipal party primaries.

August 26: Municipal party primary runoffs, if necessary.

August 21: Closing of entries for nomination by petition.

November 4: Election Day.

Aiken County, Development Issues, Public Safety, Stormwater and Flooding

A Stormwater Story

4 Comments

How Aiken County permitted development activities that led to road closures.

by Don Moniak
January 11, 2024

On two occasions in the Fall of 2024 , the University Parkway (Hwy 118) portion of Aiken’s bypass was temporarily closed at its junction with Vaucluse Road. While the official reason for the closures provided by government officials was flooding, a better term would be “debris flow,” as heavy soil erosion caused by major rain events led to the road being covered with sandy sediments that posed an unacceptable risk to public safety.

The first incident occurred after approximately 8.0 inches of steady rain over a 24-hour period— Hurricane Helene and the “predecessor” rain event—fell from September 26-27. The second incident was on November 6th following close to five inches of rain in about a 12-hour period. According to a Department of Transportation report, the cause November 6th closure resulted from sediments that accompanied a stormwater detention pond failure that was under construction.

In both instances, the sandy debris originated from a housing construction site known as Highland Bluffs, where a subdivision of 110 single-family homes is under development, and 116 townhome-style apartments are scheduled for a second phase of development (Figure 1). The developer, Highland Bluff LLC, is operating on a relatively steep slope that was has been described by Aiken County Administrator Brian Sanders at a County Council meeting as “precarious.”

From Approval to Road Closures.

On September 13, 2022, the City of Aiken’s Planning Commission recommended providing city water and sewer services for the development, and Aiken City Council gave final approval on September 26, 2022.

In April 2023, the Aiken County Planning Commission gave the developer preliminary plat approval for the single-family residences. The resolution any identified issues, including any that might be raised by the county’s engineering staff, was required before construction could begin. All of those contingencies were resolved by April 2024.

Construction began in May 2024. The heavily forested site was clearcut except for 10 to 15-foot forested buffers along the two roads bounding the site preparation work. Intensive grading ensued to prepare the site for high density housing.

Figure 1: Highland Bluffs Conceptual Plan
Highland Bluffs Location


According to County inspection reports*, problems quickly emerged in May and June that plagued the site all summer. The chronic issues included torn silt fences, an entrance that needed constant maintenance to prevent sediment from leaving the site, and soil erosion via strong winds resulting in sediments “leaving the disturbed area.” There were also “drink bottles/trash found in several areas” in May and “all over” the site in July.

In July, the county inspector reported (Figure 2) that lack of maintenance was allowing sediment to leave the site via swales (drainage ditches) in the site right of way entrances; and that the detention pond that was under construction was lacking riprap (stones placed on the shoreline to prevent erosion), a skimmer (to drain only the topmost, sediment-free layer of water), and slope stabilization. In addition, the catch basins were holding sediment, but sediment was also “leaving the site via a culvert.”

Figure 2: Portion of August 2024 county inspection report.

After a wet July that included at least one rain event of more than three inches, the inspector added that, “many slopes will need to be repaired. Issues along Vaucluse Road need to be addressed.”

By the end of a drier August, water erosion was again replaced by wind erosion that settled fine dust on neighboring properties, the culvert at the entrance was missing riprap, the detention pond still lacked erosion controls, and “both construction entrances (were) allowing sediment to leave site via swales in ROW.”

Figure 3: Before
After

Figure 4: September 28, 2024 road closure
Looking east at Road Closure with sediment across road

Not a single local media source accurately cited the reason for the closure, leaving the misimpression that it was floodwaters that caused the closures, not a debris flow.

At Aiken City Council’s November 12th meeting, Aiken Public Safety Chief Charles Barranco confirmed the latter road closure stemmed from “debris from the property above the road.”

At County Council’s November 19th meeting, the issue was raised during the public comment period. County Administrator Brian Sanders also confirmed the closures stemmed from sediments originating from the Highland Bluffs construction site, and cited the detention pond construction as the primary source.

In response to subsequent questions raised by Council members PK Hightower and Kelly Mobley, Sanders also stated that “they have a right to develop their property,” and that “they are doing everything right.”

However, the County’s inspection records suggest that the County’s own guidelines legal guidelines for site preparation were arguably not met in this instance.

According to Section 19.5-23 of the County Code, these measures include the use of “temporary plant cover, mulching, and/or structures to control runoff…during the period of development or land use change,” disturbing the smallest area practical at any one time, retaining natural vegetation and saving topsoil, and provisions to “effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused by the changed soil and surface conditions; i.e. diversion ditches, grassed or surfaced water-ways and outlets, enlarged and protected drainage channels.

This is not the first new subdivision in North Aiken to suffer from excessive soil erosion during the site preparation phase that impacted neighbors and affected public safety. Similar dust storms originating from the Portrait Hills subdivision in early 2023–permitted by the City of Aiken—covered neighboring homes and businesses with a fine layer of gritty dust and sand and created visibility issues on Highway 19 North.

The lesson learned is that the promises made by local government to concerned neighbors regarding new developments should certainly be treated by concerned citizens with a dose of healthy skepticism.

Footnote

*Aiken County inspections from May to August, 2024. Obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

City Government, In the Courts, Legal

Legal Fees for “Edward Woltz Business License Dispute” Top $80,000.

3 Comments

The City of Aiken’s business license tax dispute involving an Aiken business that is co-owned by an Aiken City Council member is now entering its fourth year. The core issue is the constitutionality of a municipality taxing property outside of its jurisdiction. The case is scheduled to be heard by the State of South Carolina’s Administrative Law Court on January 21, 2025.  Since the case involves a complex, uniform business license tax Ordinance, the administrative court judge’s ruling could affect municipalities across the state.

As of October 31, 2024, the City’s legal fees for the case have exceeded $80,000.

(An Update to Ed Woltz’s Business License Citation and A Hearing on Business License Taxes). 

by Don Moniak

December 30, 2024

The case of City of Aiken vs Edward Woltz began in November 2021, when Aiken resident and businessman Ed Woltz was quietly cited by the City with a business license violation for failure to pay business license taxes on some of his rental properties that are situated both inside and outside of the City of Aiken, and for not possessing a business license for those properties. Mr. Woltz is an Aiken City Councilman who had been reelected to a second term just a few weeks prior to the citation.  His current term ends this year.

In early September 2022, an agreement was reached to dismiss the criminal case in return for Mr. Woltz paying the back taxes. A tax reassessment for 2018 through 2022 was sent to Mr. Woltz and payment of $11,477 was made, but under protest.

The Aiken law firm of McCants and Nance was then hired to represent Mr. Woltz, his wife and business partner Holly Woltz, and their rental company S&C properties in an appeal of the assessment. At that point, the case became Edward Woltz, Holley Woltz and S&C Properties vs City of Aiken. Subsequently, the Columbia law firm of Robinson, Gray, Stepp, & Laffitte, LLC was hired to represent the City.

A hearing on the case was delayed until June 8, 2023, when a day of testimony was conducted in Aiken City Council chambers. Two weeks later, Aiken City Council’s designated hearing officer Kelly Ziers issued a ruling in favor of the city.

The Zier ruling stipulated that the Woltzes and S&C Properties owed $13,086 for four years of back taxes and penalties for ten properties within Aiken city limits, and an undisclosed amount for the more than dozen properties located outside of the city that are not subject to a business license tax by any other government body. Zier also ruled that because the Woltzes operated their rental business from within the City, the City was within its rights to collect taxes on all properties, both inside and outside of the city limits.

After the adverse ruling, the Woltzes then filed an appeal on August 23, 2023 to the State of South Carolina’s Administrative Law Court.

The appeal reiterated two of the arguments advanced during the city’s hearing; that property owners with only one residential rental unit are not required to obtain a business license, and that many of the Woltz’ rental properties are located outside of the City of Aiken—thus “taxing real properties which are not located within its jurisdiction or its lawful right to do so.”

In response, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending that the Administrative Law Division lacks jurisdiction because the Woltzes were challenging the constitutionality of portions of the business license tax Ordinance.

The Motion to Dismiss was denied in December 2023, with Chief Administrative Law Judge Ralph King Anderson III writing, in part, that 

“This court has subject matter jurisdiction in this court…Petitioners do not argue the Ordinance is unconstitutional in all of its applications; rather, they argue it is unconstitutional as applied to their particular circumstances as owners of more than one rental property in, and outside of, the City of Aiken.” 

In other words, the administrative court ruled that it can hear challenges on the parts of the Ordinance applicable to the Woltzes case, though not the entire Ordinance since most of it does not directly pertain to the case.

Since the denial of the Motion to Dismiss, the contested case hearing date has been pushed back three times, the most recent due to Hurricane Helene. It is presently scheduled for January 21-22, 2025. 

According to invoices obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, the City of Aiken has paid more than $80,000 in legal fees to the Columbia law firm of Robinson, Gray, Stepp, & Laffitte, LLC.  between September 1, 2022 and October 1, 2024

Nearly one quarter of the fees, $15,760.20, was charged during the month of June 2023 (Figure 1), when the first hearing was held. A nearly equal amount was spent preparing and defending the City’s Motion to Dismiss at the end of 2023. At this rate, the case will likely cost the city more than $100,000 for a case involving just a fraction of that amount in disputed rental properties back taxes.

Figure 1: Portions of the June 2023 invoice, the most expensive month for the city in the appeals case.



Footnote:

* Robinson, Gray, Stepp, and Latiffe monthly invoice amounts and hours billed for the Woltz business license appeal, for period of September 1, 2022 through October 1, 2024. Data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Month FeesHours billed
September 2022$1,1,254.8
October 2022$1,8608.1
November 2022$2,1977.8
December 2022$5221.9
January 2023$3,10513.1
February 2023$1,6506.4
March 2023$3,20713.8
April 2023$4,33919.5
May 2023$2,91011.8
June 2023$15,76064.5
July 2023$1,3765.2
August 2023$6,43525.9
September 2023$1,0274.1
October 2023$4501.9
November 2023$5,43122.9
December 2023$11,27444.0
January 2024$1,2304.6
February 2024$4,76220.6
March 2024$6,18327.0
April 2024$4,76212.6
May 2024$2251.0
June 202400
July 202400
August 2024$5,89624.2
September 2024$1,2304.6
October 202400
Totals $80,311350

References.

September 2022 appeal (Pages 6-10) to Aiken City Council.

June 2023 ruling by City Council’s hearing designee Kelly Zier.

August 2023 appeal to the South Carolina Administrative Court Division.

December 2023 Order denying City’s Motion to Dismiss the appeal.

Entire response to FOIA request.

Aiken County Government, Development Issues, taxation

Project Wisteria’s One New Job 

6 Comments


by Don Moniak
December 18, 2024


Tuesday night’s Aiken County Council meeting featured an unusual vote of 5-4, the only such vote for all of 2024. 

At issue was the Second Reading of the proposed Fee in Lieu of Taxes* agreement and an associated Industrial/Business Park designation for Project Wisteria (pages 42-91). 

Project Wisteria is a planned $23 million small data storage center to be constructed by an unidentified company and appears to be located on 14 acres along Atomic Road outside of North Augusta City limits (Figure 1). The property is currently owned by DCB (DC Blox) North Augusta, LLC; which purchased it for  $1,588,400 from Riverplace Holding Partnership in November 2024. The area is zoned Urban Development, but does have residential areas within that district.

The data center will involve a single job worth $150,000 per year. 

Figure 1: Proposed location of Project Wisteria data center.


Council members Kelly Mobley, Mike Kellems, Danny Feagan, and Ron Felder voted against the Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) agreement. Mobley and Felder openly questioned the need for a tax incentive for a project that will only create a single new job. Mobley also noted that since the facility will be located on “prime real estate,” the company has already purchased the land, and it is not in an existing county industrial park, there is little reason the County should further incentivize the project.

Council Chairman Gary Bunker and Council members PK Hightower, Phil Napier, Andrew Siders, and Sandy Haskell voted for the agreement and the Industrial/Business Park designation. Siders pointed out the “ancillary jobs” associated with servicing the facility added more value than the focus on a single job.

No other Council member put forth an argument in favor of granting the project tax incentive. 

Will Williams of the Western South Carolina Economic Partnership explained that the FILOT payments would be greater for the first five years, but did not explain the structure after that point nor the differences in revenues through the up to 40-year period of the negotiated FILOT agreement (2).

A public hearing followed by the Third Reading of the Project Wisteria FILOT Ordinance is tentatively scheduled for either Council’s January 7, 2025 or January 21, 2025 public meeting. 

Still No Live Stream Broadcast of Meetings

The spirited discussion revolving around Project Wisteria was only observed by meeting attendees because Aiken County Council does not livestream meetings for its citizens to observe County government in action. 

According to a recent report in The Nerve, Aiken County is one of 20 counties, out of 46, that does not livestream County Council meetings. 

Councilman Mobley, who was attending his last meeting as a Council member, has openly advocated for live streaming of meetings for the past year. During the Administrative Committee meeting he again expressed the need for Council to film the meetings, stating that: 

“People are asking to broadcast meetings and see what is going on. People want it, we can afford it, and people will trust us more if we do it.” 

During the public comment portion of the meeting, I asked the audience of approximately 40 county citizens whether they supported live streaming of meetings. An overwhelming majority raised their hand in support.

Footnote

*Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) 

The South Carolina Department of Revenue summarizes FILOT as: 

“Industries that invest at least $2.5 million in South Carolina may negotiate for a fee-in-lieu of property taxes. This can result in a savings of about 40% on property taxes otherwise due for a project. Certain large investments may be able to further reduce their liability by negotiating the assessment ratio from 10.5% down to 6%. For large investments, the assessment ratio can be reduced down to 4%. The county and the industry may agree to either set the millage rate for the entire agreement period or have the millage change every five years in step with the average millage rate for the area where the project is located. Any personal property subject to the fee in lieu of property taxes depreciates in accordance with South Carolina law, while the real property is either set at cost for the life of the agreement or can be appraised every five years.

A fee in lieu of property taxes is granted by, and at the discretion of, the county where the project is located. The industry must make the $2.5 million investment over a five-year period to qualify. Large investment projects have eight years to meet their increased investment requirements. During this period, all property that is placed in service pursuant to the agreement is subject to a fee instead of ad valorem property taxes. A county may give the industry an additional five years to complete the project and place new property in service subject to the fee. A single piece of property can be subject to the fee for up to 40 years with the county’s consent. The total project can be subject to the fee for up to 50 years with the county’s consent.” 

The FILOT rate for Project Sabal is listed as four percent. 

In between his terms on County Council and his election as County Council Chairman, Gary Bunker was a popular columnist for the Aiken Standard. in his columns he routinely described Fee in Lieu of Taxes as an industrial tax incentives. In 2013 he wrote that South Carolina’s tax structure: 

“Encourages retirees to settle here, who benefit from low property taxes. Their limited retirement income isn’t greatly penalized by the high income tax.  Conversely, this tax structure is hard on businesses and manufacturing. It encourages fee-in-lieu of tax agreements and special source revenue credits to get around high property tax rates on large industrial developments. In essence, the left hand must undo the damage caused by the right.” 

(2) See Page 18 of the County’s $6 million grant application for the proposed, and defeated, House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant project for an example of a FILOT payment structure.

November 2024, Project Pascalis 2024

Which Project Pascalis Records Remain Hidden from Public View?

4 Comments

An Update to: City of Aiken Ordered to Produce Project Pascalis Records and Former AMDC Commissioners Seek Full Disclosure of Project Pascalis Records.

by Don Moniak
November 26, 2024

This past week, the Aiken Standard published an article titled “Aiken’s Got Nothing to Hide About Project Pascalis, City Council Members Say.”

The story centered on comments made by Aiken resident Luis Rinaldini at Aiken City Council’s November 12, 2024, public meeting. Rinaldini, who is also one of plaintiffs in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, aka as the Pascalis lawsuit, referenced a closed-door Executive Session scheduled for later that evening to discuss the Pascalis lawsuit while urging Council (Figure 1) to agree to a complete release of records.

Figure 1: Email from Aiken resident Luis Rinaldini to Aiken City Council that was also submitted
to Council during its regular November 12, 2024 public meeting. A more accurate figure for the
litigation costs is ~$100,000 as of August 2023, and probably no more than $200,000 as of today.


Rinaldini’s comments were followed by objections to his premises by two council members.

First, Councilwoman Andrea Gregory stated, in part, that:

“I don’t want to leave here tonight after this public comment with the perception that there’s things not being disclosed….we will be asking all the pertinent questions (tonight). But again, as far as things not being disclosed, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t know what’s not being disclosed and this keeps coming back and it keeps hounding us; so if somebody knows what’s not being disclosed please put it on the table.”

Councilman Ed Girardeau then stated, in part, that:

I’ll second what Andrea is saying. I don’t know of any indiscretions, anything at all that we’re trying to hide. There’s nothing being hidden. In fact, I will ask tonight to disclose every single thing.”

City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, who also serves as the City’s Custodian of Records, was notably silent on the issue.

Figure 2: Feature photo. Invoice submitted by Smith Massey Brodie Guynn and Mayes on June 30, 2024.
The caption in red represents an estimate of what is written in the redacted portion. (click to enlarge)


Putting what has not been disclosed “On the Table.”

What records has the City not publicly disclosed that would help shine a spotlight on the 2021-2022 Project Pascalis proceedings? Beginning with events in May of 2021, the following are five concrete examples of undisclosed records that collectively amount to at least hundreds of pages, if not thousands.

1. The notes for the May 6, 2021 meeting on the future of the Pascalis project and properties.

During the first week of May 2021, the first Project Pascalis effort collapsed. That effort was a public-private partnership between the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) and GAC LLC (Agent: Weldon Wyatt). At the time, GAC’s property investment arm WTC Investments LLC (Agent: Ray Massey) had eight properties under contracts that involved three property owners (1).

A meeting to discuss the options for the properties under contract to WTC was held (2) on May 6, 2021. This was likely the setting where the decision was made to pursue a strategy for property acquisition, in which a nongovernmental body, the Aiken Chamber of Commerce, took assignment of the $9.5 million of WTC purchase and sales contracts (PSA) as a surrogate for the City of Aiken and the AMDC. In doing so, the Chamber assumed the $135,000 in contract earnest money previously deposited by WTC Investments—who in turn had their earnest funds returned.

Within a few weeks of the meeting, the AMDC was informing prospective developers that it held contracts on 1.6 acres in downtown Aiken—which would be the seven Pascalis properties.

If four Council members and/or five AMDC Commissioners attended this session, the meeting was arguably illegal under SC FOIA laws because any gathering of a quorum of members must be held in public view.

If a decision was made that bound the city to any future reimbursement if the Chamber of Commerce somehow lost its $135,000 in earnest money, that would at best be what city officials have termed as a “misstep.” At worst, such an agreement would arguably violate city code governing City Council’s powers to approve expenditures—because such spending must be approved during a public meeting.

2. The Smith Massey Brodie Guynn and Mayes (SMBGM) invoices.

As reported in The City of Aiken’s Law Firm, a redacted June 30, 2021, SMBGM invoice (Figure 2, above) from City Attorney Gary Smith to the City of Aiken shows work involving the Pascalis properties during the week the WTC contracts with the Shah family were assigned to the Chamber of Commerce.

Removing the redactions from this particular invoice, as well as other SMBGM invoices to the City for that time period could answer the question of who wrote the contract assignment agreements that resulted in the release of $135,000 of earnest money to WTC Investments and GAC. The importance here is that Massey—who had also been described as WTC’s Attorney just fifteen months prior by former Aiken County Attorney Jim Holley—represented GAC and WTC in the contract negotiations and preparations.

Whether SMBGM attorneys within the City Attorney’s office worked to recover earnest money for a firm represented by a member of that same SMBGM team could be answered by providing uncensored invoices.

3. AMDC and Aiken City Council Executive Sessions Minutes

As reported in Project Pascalis Transparency Index, the AMDC spent more than half of its time during public meetings in closed-door Executive Sessions. In addition, Aiken City Council held joint closed-door Executive Sessions with the AMDC on three occasions in 2022: March 22nd, June 13th, and June 27th.

While closed meetings may have been justified at the time under South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (SC FOIA) exemptions, there is no requirement under SC FOIA for closing the doors of such meetings.

Likewise, there is no prohibition on disclosing the meeting minutes and/or notes from those Executive Sessions. Under SC FOIA, the City of Aiken may release the minutes, or it can choose to keep them a secret.

4. Emails between Ray Massey and Tim O’Briant.

Ray Massey was the lead organizer of the Project Pascalis investment and development group known as RPM Development Partners. As Executive Director of the AMDC, Tim O’Briant coordinated the public side of the public-private partnership with RPM. As illustrated in A Hotel in the Alley, the two regularly communicated by email.

In fact, in October 2022, the Aiken Standard submitted its own FOIA request for a number of Pascalis records, including correspondence between O’Briant and Ray Massey.

In its response, the City admitted there were such records, but chose to deny disclosure by citing FOIA exemptions (Figure 4).

Figure 4: City of Aiken response to a portion of the Aiken Standard FOIA request from October 2020. (click to enlarge)

In the past six months, the City has released, via FOIA, correspondence from Mr. Massey to both O’Briant and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh for the period May 1, 2021 to September 1, 2021. There is no rationale remaining to not disclose every email to and from Massey between October 1, 2021 and September 29, 2022; the day after the Pascalis project was cancelled by the AMDC.

5. The “Privilege Log”

As described in Former AMDC Commissioners Seek Full Disclosure of Pascalis Records, a court filing by former AMDC Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chairman Chris Verenes seeks the release of a sixteen-page “privilege log” of ~120 written records that mostly involved, in some manner, AMDC Attorney Gary Pope.

The court filing also reported that Mr. Wood and Mr. Verenes released 1,318 pages of non-privileged email correspondence to the Plaintiffs—about 1,318 more pages of emails than the City itself has provided to the Plaintiffs.

Commentary

Aiken City Council has several choices. Council can support the City’s dogged positions regarding Project Pascalis records that have been in effect since the spring of 2022–which included exorbitant FOIA fee determinations that deterred public inquiry.

Or, Council could direct its attorneys to fully comply with the recent Court Order to release records to the Pascalis lawsuit Plaintiffs.

Or best, Council could direct City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh to publicly disclose, in a readily accessible format, “every single thing” related to the Pascalis project. If this approach were to be adopted, the City could then restore the AMDC’s website, which was removed from view several months ago, and post all Pascalis project records there.

On September 29, 2022, the day Project Pascalis was officially cancelled, AMDC Vice Chair Chris Verenes issued a public statement that included the sentence “The public deserves no less than the truth.” Full release of the Pascalis project files is the surest pathway to the whole truth about the project.

Figure 4. Aiken County Council discussing the issue of Project Pascalis public records.
Ed Girardeau (far left) committed to requesting that “every single thing” be released.
(see the 59:00 minute mark of the You tube meeting video for the full discussion).

Footnotes

(1) The properties were:

“The Shah Property:” Beckman Building at 106 Laurens St SW, Hotel Aiken, Holley House motel, Taj Aiken restaurant, McGhee Building at the corner of Richland and Newberry, and Warneke Cleaners. The “Shah Property” was purchased by the AMDC for $7.5 million.

Anderson family holdings: Newberry Hall, which the AMDC paid $2.0 million.

The former Joe Harrison State Farm property on Newberry Street was the eighth parcel under contract to WTC, but one that was not transferred to AMDC control. It was eventually purchased by Aiken Alley Holdings for $675,000, and later became an integral part of the second Pascalis project design.

(2) There are two reference points for the May 6, 2021 meeting.

First, a May 4, 2021, memo (Figure 5) from Tim O’Briant to AMDC officials stated that “…(Councilwoman) Lessie (Price) is setting up the Thursday meeting to get everyone in one room…”  Second, Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. billed 7.2 hours to attend a meeting on May 6, 2021.

Figure 5: Portion of May 4, 2024 email memorandum from Tim O’Briant to AMDC Commissioners Keith Wood, Chris Verenes, and David Jameson. The memo was obtained in July 2022, via a FOIA request for Jameson’s emails. The City of Aiken failed to provide fifteen days of emails, from May 5 to May 19, 2021, that led up to Jameson signing the contract assignment for the Shah properties. (click to enlarge)



(3) On October 17, 2022, the Aiken Standard submitted a FOIA request to the City of Aiken for information pertaining to the Pascalis project. It was the paper’s only known FOIA request from 2022 and 2023 pertaining directly to Project Pascalis—unless one counts a request for pre-2022 information regarding only the Hotel Aiken.

Request item #9 was for “The conditional purchase and sale agreement between the Aiken Municipal Development Commission and RPM Development Partners.”

In its response, the City also denied that request, citing the SC FOIA exemption for “Documents of and documents incidental to proposed contractual arrangements and documents of and documents incidental to proposed sales or purchases of property.”

However, on November 10, 2022, the Aiken Chronicles published Downtown Aiken Half Price Sale, which contained a link to the $5 million Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) between the AMDC and RPM; the same PSA that had been requested by the Standard.

The PSA was obtained after it was inadvertently placed in the city’s document repository on October 21, 2022, about the same time as the Standard’s FOIA request. It was removed on November 11th, the day after the Aiken Chronicles story.

Even though it was a well-read article, the Aiken Standard never reported on the very document that it had requested via FOIA, even after it became publicly available by other means—and remains available.

The Aiken Standard has chosen since that time to omit from its reporting the very information it had sought via a FOIA request.

The availability of the PSA was a point of consternation for the AMDC and the City. On November 10, 2022, in regard to the inadvertent release of the PSA, then-Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant wrote to AMDC Chairman Keith Wood that:

“It took some investigating but I’ve now uncovered that Sara posted the PSA to the online city records system despite the fact that we’ve steadfastly refused to release the document as allowed by FOIA. I’ve alerted Stuart, and he intends to remove the file despite Mr. Moniak now possessing and publishing it. The exemption would still apply to the June amendment now demanded.”

(The Aiken Standard and its parent company the, Charleston Post and Courier, declined to comment on the paper’s reticence in reporting on the $5 million PSA)

Other related stories:

Executive Session Backgrounder describes Open Meetings law and examines two Aiken City Council closed-door Executive Sessions.

A Project Pascalis Timeline provides an outline of events from late 2019 to the cancellation of the project in September 2022.

Moot or Not Moot describes the status of the Pascalis lawsuit as of September 2023.

The City of Aiken’s Information Games, Part 1, details the way in which three separate FOIA requestors across a two month period were all met with the exact same exorbitant fee determination of $5213 involving 336 hours. The story epitomizes the efforts city officials made to deter public inquiry into the Pascalis project.