All posts by donaldmoniak

A Hotel in The Alley: The Other 2021 Public-Private Partnership Failure.

In May 2021, Aiken attorney, real estate investor, and developer Ray Massey led an effort to obtain properties owned by the City of Aiken as part of a larger development that included a 100-room hotel and later Project Pascalis. This was an unknown public-private partnership effort that was negotiated in private; one that ultimately failed on its own, and before any public scrutiny emerged.

The object of Massey’s courtship with the City was a 0.21-acre, city-owned property—known alternatively as the Brinkley Property, the Bike Building, or the USC-Aiken Building (1), and herein, also referred to as the Alley Property—a parcel dominated by a 4,023 square-foot, one-story building at the corner of Newberry Street SW and the Alley (Figure 1a). At that time, the building was unoccupied and the property was destined to be declared surplus property.

Also at the time, Massey’s investment and development group, Aiken Alley Holdings, owned or had under contract 0.56 acres of property along Newberry Street, across the Alley from the City of Aiken’s “Brinkley Building” property (Figure 1c). Massey’s expressed intent was to construct a 100-room hotel on those 0.56 acres, preferably through a public-private partnership with the City of Aiken.

Aiken Alley Holdings’ first attempt to acquire the City of Aiken property was a proposal for a 99-year ground lease of the Brinkley Building, along with a 50-foot wide portion of Newberry Street itself, at a greatly discounted fixed rate of $12,000 per year. Their second attempt at acquisition was a proposed outright purchase of the building at the greatly discounted sale price of $750,000.
Both efforts ultimately failed to move forward to the necessary public hearing stage—both proposals failed without any public interference.

The negotiations on Massey’s ground lease proposal were conducted on the city side of the table solely by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. This private negotiation for city property occurred despite the fact that Massey is a partner within the City’s law firm, Smith Massey Brodie Guynn and Mayes (SMBGM). Massey consistently used SMGMB letterhead in his business correspondence with both Bedenbaugh and Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant.

Today, a “portion of the building” is under consideration to install a much-need public restroom in The Alley—a facility the City failed to provide when it renovated the popular commercial district nearly a decade ago. But the future of the entire surplus property still remains in limbo
.

(All emails from Ray Massey to Aiken city officials that are cited or described in this article can be found in this file obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. A glossary of terms, individuals, and groups can be found on this page).


by Don Moniak
August 26, 2024

Aiken resident Jacob Ellis is known for asking questions to, and inducing answers from, Aiken city officials during public meetings. On June 10, 2024, Mr. Ellis asked, “Why are there no public restrooms in The Alley?”

According to the meeting minutes, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh responded, “The City is getting pricing on converting a portion of the building at Newberry (Street) and The Alley to public restrooms.” He noted he did not know if that would be the location. He said that, internally, staff had talked about the location for public restrooms but that “we need to talk to Council about the matter and the next steps.”

Mr. Bedenbaugh did not address future possibilities for the remainder of that building and its surrounding property (Figure 1a); nor whether any alternatives were under consideration.

Three years ago, Bedenbaugh was involved in another effort to develop the property in question, which is now the City’s only remaining parcel of land in The Alley. It was a complicated and stealthy effort to pursue a separate downtown development that originated during the first rendition of Project Pascalis, and continued to overlap with the second version of the Pascalis project. As with Project Pascalis, a public-private partnership involving city property and a development agreement was envisioned.

The City of Aiken obtained the Brinkley property in 2008 for $930,351; for the purpose of expanding its 224 Park Avenue SW Municipal Building. That repurposing was never realized, as City Council opted instead to buy and repurpose the historic Henderson Hotel (former Regions Bank building) at 111 Chesterfield Street.

From late May 2021 to January 2022, Aiken attorney Ray Massey lobbied Bedenbaugh on behalf of his newly formed investment and development group, Aiken Alley Holdings LLC, to control the City’s Alley property. Aiken Alley Holdings LLC had already purchased three properties on the north side of The Alley in March 2021 (Figure 1c).

First, Massey proposed a 99-year ground lease of the property and its building, as well as a 50-foot wide stretch of Newberry Street containing most of its southbound lane (Figures 1b and 3). When that effort ultimately failed to gain traction, Massey’s investment group offered to purchase the City’s Brinkley Property, along with the city-owned parking lot across from the Hotel Aiken.

These negotiations occurred in the absence of the City commissioning any appraisals, seeking competitive bids, conducting a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the soon-to-be-surplus property, and/or holding a public hearing; an absence of due diligence that, sadly, continues to this day.

Massey’s lobbying efforts began the day before the AMDC and City of Aiken, via the contract assignment to the Aiken Chamber of Commerce described in Part 1 of this story, gained control of the six properties in the Pascalis project footprint (collectively known as the “Shah Property”). The assignment was the culmination of a failed, two-month-long effort to pursue a larger version of Project Pascalis (1).

As reported in the three-part series Project Pascalis Includes the Alley, Ray Massey had been heavily involved in the first, failed rendition of Project Pascalis, thus obtaining considerable inside information on the inner workings of the project.

Figure 2: This April 2021, rendition of a hotel, apartments, and retail space at Newberry Street and The Alley was envisioned as part of the first version of Project Pascalis. The building on the left is on the site of the existing City of Aiken’s “Brinkley Property” along The Alley. The hotel was to be built on the north side of The Alley. That Project Pascalis effort quietly failed, without any public disclosure, in early May 2021.. The vision for a 100-room hotel on the north side of The Alley continued through much of 2021, with Aiken Alley Holdings LLC (Agent Ray Massey) lobbying City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh to gain control of the city’s property in The Alley.

The Ground Lease Proposal

On May 24, 2021, Ray Massey sent a Letter of Interest (LOI) to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. In the LOI, Massey relayed the desire of his investment and development group, Aiken Alley Holdings LLC, to build a 100-room hotel on the “Harrison Property” just north of the intersection of The Alley and Newberry Street.

To accomplish this goal, Massey proposed a 99-year ground lease for The Alley property owned by the City, and a 50-foot wide, 4,000-square-foot part of Newberry Street in front of the property. (Figure 3). He also sought a development agreement with the City to develop the immediate area.

Massey’s first offer to Bedenbaugh was submitted with the letterhead of his, and the City’s, law firm of Smith Massey Brodie Guynn and Mayes (SMBGM). The deal would be $10,000 per-year fixed rental rate to lease the City’s Alley property and 4,000 square feet of Newberry Street. A day later, Massey upped the offer to $12,000 per year; a meager $1,000 per month for 99 years (Figure 4).

The Letter of Interest stated that, “We believe this LOI can be consummated on or before December 31, 2021 (the ‘Target Closing Date’).” (emphasis original).

Figure 4. Portions of the Letter of Intent from Aiken Alley Holdings LLC, via SMBGM, to Stuart Bedenbaugh. (click to enlarge).

Neither the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) nor Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant were listed as recipients of the ground lease proposal.

O’Briant had also emailed Massey on the 24th, attaching a prospectus for potential Project Pascalis developers, with the message:

Last week we sent out a packet to a number of interested developers as we try to develop proposals rooted in a common set of objectives. To date, we have had expressions of interest that are all over the map. The preference is for one developer to deliver all components of any eventual project and then sell back the portions that will be owned and operated by the public sector. (the conference center and garage primarily).  I know that your group’s vision is different than what is contained in this thumbprint, but I wanted you to have the same benefit as the others who will submit master developer proposals in the event that you decide to weigh in on that umbrella role.”

The next day, May 25th, in reference to the O’Briant email, Massey wrote to Bedenbaugh; but not O’Briant:

We can discuss this also after we discuss the LOI. I would prefer if just you and I are on the call.”

Shortly after that email, Massey sent Bedenbaugh a nearly 20-year old supporting document for his ground lease offer (Figure 5); an email that referenced a Letter of Interest for the Hotel Aiken from an unidentified party that included a $1 million offer price.

Figure 5. A LOI for the Hotel Aiken was submitted around May 24th. It is unknown how Massey knew about the $1 million proposal for the site, as all bids and proposals during the search for a Project Pascalis developer had not been publicly disclosed—and remain undisclosed. The one probability is that Greenville developer Andy Cajka had made the $1 million bid. Massey had been put in touch with Cajka by Tim O’Briant.


Over the next few months, Massey kept in contact with both Bedenbaugh and O’Briant, sometimes together, sometimes separately, literally working both sides of the street—or, in this case the Alley.

The Massey group’s overtures to Bedenbaugh began to further overlap with the updated Project Pascalis. In a June 4th, 2021 email to Chip Goforth, O’Briant described “awaiting whatever it is that Ray and his group come up with. Whatever it is it should be good for downtown.”

On June 7th, the deadline date for the new Pascalis project proposals, the group submitted a two-paragraph Letter of Intent—again on SMBGM letterhead. Massey reiterated his group’s desire to build a 100-room hotel at the corner of Newberry and The Alley, and also revealed, without actually identifying them by name, the background of partner firms Raines Corporation and Lat Purser & Associates (Figure 6).

HO
Figure 6: Letter of Intent from Ray Massey to Tim O’Briant to become the Project Pascalis developer. The letter shows that Massey was privy to the inside knowledge that the Chamber of Commerce had the properties under contract. Other developers had been told in Tim O’Briant’s prospectus letter that the AMDC “holds contracts to purchase roughly 1.6 acres in the downtown” but made no mention of the Chamber. The Chamber had signed its assignment papers for the “Anderson property” on June 3rd and for the “Shah property” on May 25th.

The AMDC met on June 8th to discuss the selection of a Pascalis project developer. After meeting in a closed-door Executive Session, the Commission voted to authorize Chairman Keith Wood to enter into negotiations with a potential developer related to Project Pascalis.

Prior to the meeting, Massey had written to Bedenbaugh, regarding the ground lease proposal:

What is the date the City will consider my LOI on the Bike Property? I believe you said June 15. Is that correct? Also, after I meet with my development team on the 15th, I would like to have a meeting with the City Council (work session) to discuss our proposal. Much like Mr. Wyatt did earlier this year. Is that possible, and can we schedule?”

Two days after he was authorized by AMDC to negotiate with potential Project Pascalis developers, Chairman Wood expressed concern over a potential “real or perceived conflict of interest” involving Aiken Alley Holdings Letter of Intent, writing to Bedenbaugh:

Stuart, 

Indirectly related, I have concerns relative to a conflict of interest the City Attorney may have in our process. I noted that Ray Massey submitted the Alley proposal on letterhead that included Gary Smith’s name. In addition, I am concerned that Gary’s attendance in future meetings with developers may compromise our process based on his relationship with Ray Massey (i.e. same legal firm). I recommend we ensure the proper firewall exists to alleviate any real or perceived conflict of interest.” 


Bedenbaugh dismissed the concerns, seeming to confuse ethics law with the issue of attorney-client privilege, and writing that “we have had similar issues in the past and have not had any problems.”

No “firewall” between City Attorney Smith—who still represented the AMDC at that point—and Aiken Alley Holdings was contemplated, and Massey continued to use SMBGM letterhead in business correspondence with city officials.

On June 24th, Massey continued lobbying for his 99-year ground lease, writing to Bedenbaugh,

Hi Stuart,

Now that we have met, and we are submitting this week the addendum, there is probably no need to meet yet with the City Council on the 28th of June. Do you agree?”


Bedenbaugh agreed, and no such meeting ever occurred. The addendum (not yet disclosed) to the Letter of Intent was sent to O’Briant and Bedenbaugh on June 24th.

On July 2, 2021, the overlap with version two of Project Pascalis continued to increase when Massey emailed both Bedenbaugh and O’Briant, again on SMBGM letterhead (Figure 7). This time he identified some of the investment group’s members—including PGA golfer and Aiken resident Kevin Kisner. Again, no member of the AMDC was cc’ed in the letter.

Figure 7: Letter from Ray Massey on behalf of an unnamed group and team.

The July 14th Cocktail Hour

On July 13, 2022, Massey emailed Bedenbaugh and O’Briant to inquire about the status of the Project Pascalis procurement process, again without cc’ing AMDC officials, writing:

“ I am following up regarding the pending project to see if you know when a decision will be made regarding selecting a developer. I believe it was said in our last meeting that a decision would be made to eventually dance with one partner.”

It was Bedenbaugh who replied that “We are at least several weeks from determining;” an indication that, at that point in time, he had taken a lead role in selecting a developer—rather than project leader Tim O’Briant or the authorized negotiator Keith Wood, and despite the fact that Bedenbaugh was only a non-voting ex-officio AMDC member.

The next day, Bedenbaugh and Massey exchanged emails (3), sans O’Briant and Wood, to set up a meeting, one that resulted in an agreement to meet for a drink instead of at Bedenbaugh’s office. The exchange read, in part:

8:14 a.m. Massey: Can you meet with me today at 5? We can meet for a drink or we can meet at your office, whatever you prefer, if you are available. I just want to give you a quick update, and provide you with some good news.

8:41 a.m. Bedenbaugh: We can meet at 5 for a drink. Name the place.

8:45 a.m. Massey: How about the Whitney at 5?

The outcome of that meeting is unknown.

The series of Pascalis project-related events that followed (4) included Bedenbaugh and O’Briant shepherding the approval of a $10 million bond issuance in August 2021; the October 2021 $9.6 million general obligation bond issuance; the AMDC’s $9.5 million purchase of Pascalis and public disclosure of the project status; and the subsequent $5 million Purchase and Sales Agreement for those same properties between the AMDC and the Massey-led RPM Development Partners LLC.

While Pascalis moved forward, Massey and his local investment group continued their attempts to gain control of The Alley property—this time by an outright purchase.

Another Bid for the City’s Alley Property.

On December 27, 2021, just three weeks after signing the Pascalis PSA (Purchase and Sale Agreement) on behalf of RPM Development Partners, Massey signed a PSA on behalf of another investment group, CTR, LLC, for both the City’s Alley property and for a city-owned parking lot behind the Security Federal building on Richland Avenue. The total purchase price was $750,000. (CTR stands for Craig (Heath), Todd (Gaul), Ray (Massey).

On January 24, 2022, the following item appeared on City Council’s meeting agenda:

(6) Reading and Public Hearing of an Ordinance Approving the Sale of Two Parcels of Property to CTR, LLC.”

Stuart Bedenbaugh’s supporting memorandum (Figure 8) for the Ordinance included no reference to competing bids nor any kind of appraisals, and justified the discounted sale prices on the basis of lost tax revenue in the previous thirteen years. In essence, Bedenbaugh argued that the city should accept the financial loss because it already had foregone tax revenues due to City Council approving purchase of the building in 2008; he included no references to increased downtown property values since that time.

The public hearing never happened. After a closed-door Executive Session attended by Massey, his investment and development partner Todd Gaul, and City Attorney Gary Smith, City Council took the proposal off the agenda, but did not table it.

The vote to remove it from the agenda was 6-1, with Councilwoman Andrea Gregory voting to keep it on the agenda and hold a public hearing.

Figure 8: The supporting memorandum for the discounted sale of The Alley property and a city-owned parking lot situated behind the Security Federal building and the then-Meybohm Building owned by (Agent: Todd Gaul).


Another Bid for Newberry Street.

While CTR’s effort to acquire the city-owned Alley property lay dormant, a second effort to acquire a part of Newberry Street prominently emerged in March of 2022.

The proposed privatization of a portion of the City’s Newberry Street—one similar to the Massey group’s 2021 ground-lease proposal—would ultimately direct more public scrutiny and outrage towards Project Pascalis than any other aspect of the project.

The proposal involved the conveyance of a portion of the city-owned street to the AMDC’s Pascalis project “preferred developer,” RPM Development Partners (a company formed in October 2021; whose acronym stands for Raines, Purser, and Massey; and whose Registered Agent is Ray Massey). In exchange, RPM would transfer the Harrison Property to the City—although the fate of the final ownership of that parcel if Project Pascalis succeeded was uncertain.

On March 28, 2022, the first Public Hearing on the privatization Ordinance was held. Twenty speakers walked to the podium to object to the Ordinance; no parties rose in support. Neither Massey nor any other member of the development team, if any were present, were asked to present their case.

City Attorney Gary Smith did not recuse himself at that meeting, and continued to serve as the City Council’s Parliamentarian and attorney; both at a prior closed-door Executive Session pertaining to Project Pascalis and during the Public Hearing. At one point, Smith provided a favorable interpretation of the deal that benefitted his partner’s investment and development group—but overall deferred to Bedenbaugh and O’Briant.

Early in the session, Bedenbaugh (Figure 9) praised the “piecemeal” nature of the process, stating:

One of the things that makes this project unique is that it is not being put together by a developer for a multi-layer plan that has multiple elements being presented to the public at one time. He pointed out that this plan is being done in a piecemeal fashion so there are elements that are easy to review and have public engagement.”

Stuart Bedenbaugh’s statement to Keith Wood in June 2021 about a lack of “problems” involving City Attorney Gary Smith proved to be no longer true; as Smiths’ presence at a public hearing that involved the acquisition of city-owned property by an investment and development group headed up by his partner Ray Massey galvanized enough community outrage to compel Smith to distance himself from the project.

At the second Public Hearing on the Newberry Street privatization Ordinance, AMDC Attorney Gary Pope Jr. sat in the City Attorney’s chair; the late Jim Holley was also retained to represent the Design Review Board and guide it through the Pascalis project review process; and after May 9, 2022 Attorney Daniel Plyler began to represent the City Council during any meetings where closed-door Executive Sessions pertaining to the Pascalis project were also held.

Even though the Newberry Street privatization Ordinance was approved on May 9, 2022, the lack of recusal by Smith during the first hearing, coupled with the effort to privatize part of Newberry Street were two contributing factors in the eventual demise of Project Pascalis.

Today, the City’s Alley Property remains vacant, and an informal proposal to convert part of the building to a public restroom facility is pending; the fate of the entire property is yet to be determined. Aiken Alley Holdings continues its ownership and leasing of the Harrison Property (Figure 10) and the adjacent properties in The Alley. It is unknown whether any redevelopment plans are under consideration.

Figure 9: City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh at the First Reading of the Public Hearing (44:00 minute mark) for an Ordinance to privatize 0.6 acres of Newberry Street. A smaller-scale version of the Ordinance eventually was approved on May 9th. After the Pascalis project was cancelled, following intense public scrutiny and outcry and a major lawsuit, the Newberry Street privatization Ordinance was repealed in early November 2022.


Summary.

For nearly one year, Aiken property investor Ray Massey lobbied City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh to control the City’s remaining property in The Alley; first via a 99-year lease and then through an outright purchase—all at deeply discounted prices, one of which Bedenbaugh favorably presented to City Council.

While the plans fizzled, the facts remain that Massey conducted business using the letterhead of the City’s Law Firm of Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes; and that Stuart Bedenbaugh, even when prompted by AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, did not view these circumstances as potentially suspect, if not locally explosive.

Instead, Bedenbaugh continued to meet with a member of the City’s law firm to discuss the sale and/or lease of a city property and the status of Project Pascalis negotiations. In January 2022, their negotiations culminated in an agreement to sell city properties at greatly discounted prices—an offer that City Council wisely chose to avoid even discussing in public.

At the same time, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission, and to a lesser extent Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, was kept uninformed about the Bedenbaugh-Massey negotiations and discussions. The project concept was not only discussed outside of public view, the high level of stealthiness even excluded the very organization, the AMDC, charged with redevelopment efforts in the downtown area and Parkway District.

In spite of the Massey group’s intense interest in the building, the City has never pursued an RFP for the building, obtained an appraisal, sought competitive bids, or, until now, officially considered repurposing it for the public good such as for well-needed restroom facilities and a cooling station.

Two years after Project Pascalis failed, there has still been no activity or official proposals for the City’s Alley Property—proving that local government is very capable of internally fumbling management of its own properties. If not for a question posed by an Aiken citizen, the future possibilities for the property would be unknown.

Figure 10: The “Harrison Property” today. The building is occupied by a contractor whose window decal ironically portrays what would have been an interim scene in the surrounding downtown area had the Pascalis project and the Aiken Alley Holdings project moved forward.



Footnotes:

(1) The “Brinkley Property” is referred to as “The Alley” property for the purpose of this article, to simplify the situation and avoid confusion with the larger, private Brinkley Property on the adjacent parcel to the south.

The property has, over the years, had several occupants. From about 1954 to 1984 the bright yellow Birdsey Grocery building occupied the site. According to Laura Lance, “it was within walking distance to downtown homes, and was also a venue for poor people and black people, who often didn’t shop some of the other grocery stores during most of these years.”

Overall, Birdsey’s was a downtown institution for 50 years, as it was formerly called Birdsey Flour and Seed, an establishment that would grind wheat and other grains for farmers.

After Birdsey’s, the building became a restaurant, then a gift shop. From 1994 to 2004 it was the Cyclesport bicycle shop, thus earning it the nickname of “The Bike Shop.”

After the City obtained it in 2008, USC-Aiken occupied it for several years.

(2) The original PSA for the Harrison Property was signed on March 3, 2021 by WTC Investments, LLC partner Weldon Wyatt. At some point after April 30, 2021, the day that Wyatt offered to sell it to the City/AMDC, the PSA was assigned to Aiken Alley Holdings LLC; which bought the. the property on June 7, 2021, for $675,000.

(3) Prior to May 24, 2021, the following Project Pascalis events had transpired.

March 2, 2021: WTC Investments signed a PSA with the Shah family for six of the eventual Pascalis project properties; the package was referred to as “the Shah Property.”

March 3, 2021: WTC signed the PSA for the Harrison Property.

March 15, 2021: Aiken Alley Holdings purchased the “Laurens Building,” at 200 and 210 The Alley for $2 million. The properties would become part of the original Pascalis concept plan.

March 16, 2021: The existence of Project Pascalis was announced.

March 23, 2021: WTC’s development arm, GAC LLC, signed a Cost Sharing Agreement with the AMDC.

April 30 to May 6, 2021. A series of meetings between city officials and WTC/GAC management culminated in the end of the first Pascalis project. (Just prior to the collapse, Weldon Wyatt offered to sell the Harrison Property and the Aiken Alley Holdings properties to the AMDC. Although the offer was declined, it illustrated the strong connection and overlap between WTC and Aiken Alley Holdings.)

May 17, 2021. O’Briant began to recruit developers for a second, smaller-scale Project Pascalis effort.

May 25, 2021. The City of Aiken and the AMDC “gained control” of the Shah property via an assignment of the WTC PSA to the Chamber of Commerce. The same process involving the Anderson property occurred on June 3, 2021.

(3) The July 14, 2021, Massey to Bedenaugh email exchange:


(4) Pascalis related events from August 2021 to December 2021.

August 13, 2021: Tim O’Briant informed Massey that the AMDC had selected him to negotiate with potential Pascalis developers. (However, the meeting minutes for the August 10, 2021 AMDC meeting show no such decision was officially made or conveyed following an Executive Session.)

August 24, 2021; The City Council approved the $10 million bond issuance for the AMDC to potentially obtain properties in the “Parkway district”—even though city officials knew the properties in question were the seven Pascalis parcels in the downtown.

The day after the decision, Massey asked O’Briant in an email, “how did it go last night?”

October 6, 2021: Attorney Gary Pope of the law firm Pope and Flynn is retained by the COA and AMDC to act as the AMDC’s attorney.

October 17, 2021: Massey registers RPM (Raines, Purser, and Massey) Development Partners as a South Carolina LLC.

November 9, 2021: After more than a month of failed negotiations to reach a Master Development Agreement and purchase arrangement for the Pascalis Properties with RPM, or an equivalent consortium, the AMDC bought the properties at the $9.5 million price tag; and reimbursed the Chamber its $135,000 in earnest monies.

December 5, 2021: Massey signed, on behalf of RPM the PSA for the Pascalis Properties, at a greatly discounted price of $5 million.

Additional References:

The Pascalis Attorneys also provide details of the Newberry Street Ordinance and the Ordinance to approve $10 million of general obligation Municipal Bonds for purchasing properties in “The Parkway District.”

The AECOM Plan provides more details of the events leading up to the failure of the first version of Project Pascalis, where the A memorandum from Tim O’Briant to AMDC members Jameson, Chris Verenes, and Chairman Keith Wood  was first published.

$5.7 Million and Counting: The Wheaton Place at Trolley Run Station Class-Action Lawsuit Settlements. 


by Don Moniak
August 23, 2024

Trolley Run Station in Northwest Aiken is one of the largest housing developments in Aiken County.  At present, there are 1,066 housing units on the more than 1,500-acre site, with another 1,091 single family homes  in the longer-term planning process (1).

One of the many subdivisions within Trolley Run is Wheaton Place, which is composed of 87 townhomes and was built between 2012 and 2016. 

Within a few years, residents were experiencing problems from stormwater, including flooding of backyards and water intrusion; as well as and HVAC and plumbing defects. The problems were severe enough across the subdivision that the Lucey Law Firm of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, was retained to seek remedy on the part of homeowners.

A class-action lawsuit (2) naming four defendants—the developer Invesco LLC, ATSCO, Inc, Wagaman’s HVAC Sales and Service, and Hardy Plumbing, was filed by Attorney Justin Lucey on November 11, 2020.  In addition to the four initial defendants, “John Does #1-50” and “Jane Does #1-50” were listed to allow for additional defendants to be added to the suit. In total, an additional 32 defendants who had worked on aspects of the project were added to the Complaint; which was amended three times.

The order granting the class-action status was issued on February 2, 2022 (3). Eventually, 86 of the 87 eligible property owners signed up for the class action suit. 

The allegations in the original Complaint were outlined as defective work that led to additional property damages: 

The residences contained latent building defects, which have resulted in cracking foundations, water intrusion, and MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) deficiencies. These latent defects, in combination with storms and other fortuitous events, and regular and repeated exposure to harmful elements, including but not limited to water intrusion and differential settlement, have caused consequential damages to non-defective portions of the Residences.” 

A long series of Motions to Compel and Crossclaims have characterized the proceedings. In addition to the Plaintiff having to compel the production of records, especially from the developer Invesco, numerous Defendants filed Crossclaims and subsequent Motions to Compel against fellow Defendants. 

Figures 1-4. (1) Heavy erosion on graded slope during construction (top); (2) Graded slope subject to heavy stormwater runoff into flat backyards and homes (middle); (3) Retaining wall that is gradually failing (lower right); (4) Aerial view of Wheaton Place townhomes subdivision (lower left). (Photos by Site Consultants, Inc.)

Three experts were retained to review the project and identify construction deficiencies and damages (Figures 1-3 and 5-8).

One expert, Thomas Sherod of Site Consultants, Inc., issued a report that described backyards as being “extremely flat;” which allowed for flooding following any significant rain event, and eventual water intrusion into homes. The retention walls were cited as being of poor quality, contributing to site erosion and compounding the flooding problems. Numerous defects of the site’s detention pond were also identified; with the pond described as a “hazardous catch basin” due to a lack of fencing and drainge deficiencies. 

A second expert, Rhett Whitlock, identified a litany of issues, including non-weather resistant storage room and patio doors that were prematurely deteriorating, masonry stone veneer that was cracking, cracking slabs and foundations, inadequate waterproofing, finished flooring below grade, and “overall poor workmanship.” 

A third expert, Warren Maddox, focused on HVAC issues, described code violations, including improperly installed ductwork, drain pans lacking draining capability, inadequate insulation, and adverse condensation issues.  

As a result of the numerous defects, the average cost estimate for repairs was $125,000 per home—compare this estimate to the costs of the homes, which have sold for anywhere from $91,000 to $160,000 in the past decade. Only a few have been sold after 2020. 

After three and a half years of litigation, defendants began to settle. 

On May 4, 2024, the first partial settlement for $3,895,000 and involving fourteen defendants was ordered. After attorney fees and expenses, $2,202,040 was placed in an account for the homeowners. 

On August 21, 2024, a Second Amended Motion for Partial Settlement was heard in the Second District Court of South Carolina. There were no objections from the twelve defendants in the second settlement, the Presiding Judge Kimpkins agreed to approve the settlement within a day. The total second partial settlement was for $1,799,750; in addition the developer, Invesco LLC, agreed to convey three of its remaining townhome properties that are currently under lease to the homeowner’s association. 

In total, $5.7 million has been awarded to the Plaintiffs and $3.27 million is now in an account for homeowners. 

Eleven defendants officially remain in the class-action suit, Unless another partial settlement is reached, the case will eventually go before a jury. 

Figures 5-8: More alleged defects and damages. (Photos and original captions by Site Consultants, Inc.)

Footnotes

(1) According to a recent development application to the County Planning Department for the Ashland at Trolley Run Station residential development: 

There are currently 523 single family homes, 288 apartments and 255 townhomes located in the development with one full access point on Vaucluse Road (Catenary Boulevard) and one full access point on Robert M. Bell Parkway (SC 118) (Trolley Run Boulevard) with an additional 612 single family homes and 246 townhomes constructed at Phase 1. At Phase 2 – Buildout, the site is planned to have a total of 2,226 single family homes, 288 apartments and 501 townhomes, an increase of 1,091 single family homes. One additional access points is planned on Vaucluse Road west of Catenary Boulevard, which is planned as part of the Buildout conditions.”

(2) The voluminous case file is available at sccourts.org. It is not a complete file; very few depositional or discovery documents are available. 

(3) This was not the first class-action lawsuit involving townhomes in Aiken. In 2012 a class-action was granted for homes on Spencer Drive and surrounding neighborhoods. In 2014 another class-action was granted for more townhomes in the Eastgate area south of the former Aiken Mall. Lucey Law Firm also litigated those cases. 

The “Atrocious” Farmers Market Project, Revisited

A Two-Part Update on The Farmers Market Fiasco

One year ago the failure of the City of Aiken’s Farmers Market streetscape redevelopment project contributed to the defeat of then-incumbent Mayor Rick Osbon, and a further erosion of trust in city government that had lingered in the wake of Project Pascalis.

The project was envisioned as a remake of that part of the Williamsburg Street Parkway surrounding the Market area, and as such was misleadingly called the Williamsburg Street Project.  But only a rough concept plan, and not the details, was ever publicly divulged; the thin veneer of public involvement included Community Development Committee meetings that lacked a quorum of members.

The project is funded in part by a $990,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).


Because bidding for the project came in nearly half a million dollars over budget, the City allocated an additional $400,000 from SRS plutonium settlement funds to compensate for the shortfall.

The HUD loan application included language implying the vibrancy of the Farmers Market and surrounding commercial establishments—-the popular Little Howie’s restaurant and Charlie’s Fish Market—-was a thing of the past, stating:

This section of Williamsburg St has become distressed over the years with vacant, dilapidated commercial buildings and housing. This area once flourished with patrons shopping at the Aiken Farmer’s Market, a restaurant and a fish market on the same block of Williamsburg St.”

The project began just after Memorial Day weekend when ten trees, six of which qualified as “grand trees,” that provided a shaded, comfortable experience at the Market were cut down. Enough public outcry ensued to compel a “pause” the project, a delay that continues to this day.  

One result of the public outcry was an internal investigation ordered by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh that led to a new, internal policy stating that city projects must be subjected to the same processes as the City requires for private developers.


The policy falls well short of that goal. City projects are still only subject to the level of staff review required for private developments, but not to the level of public scrutiny that private developers must face. The gauntlet for developers includes a public hearing by the City of Aiken Planning Commission, followed by two public hearings before City Council—and developments within the historic and Old Aiken Overlay districts must also endure a hearing before the Design Review Board.

As a result of this minimalist approach to reforming the review process for city projects, not a single public hearing has yet to be held on the actual plan or set of plans for the Farmers Market Parkway project and the adjacent Jackson Petroleum property that is also owned by the City.

Figure 1; clockwise from upper left: 1a. Looking South towards Farmers Market (2022); 1b. Conceptual view of post-redevelopment Farmers Market; 1c. September 2022 sign announcing redevelopment project—with no contact information or visuals; 1d. Two of the three remaining trees after ~70 pct of the tree canopy was removed from the Market area. The oak tree in the center of the photo stood in the shelter of larger dominant oak trees and is now more vulnerable to wind and other adverse weather.

Part 1: The Internal Policy

by Don Moniak
August 13, 2024

On May 30, 2023, a City of Aiken contractor began the process of redeveloping the block of the Williamsburg Street Parkway that surrounds the Aiken County Farmers Market (Figure 1a).  

The City’s plan was to convert a well-shaded, park-like stand of trees into a generic landscape of clay pavers, irrigated lawns, and a high-density stand of nursery-stock trees and shrubs (Figure 1b).

The project began with the removal of three-quarters of the trees on the block—nearly seventy percent of the towering tree canopy that once shaded and cooled denizens of the Market was gone in a day. 

Ten of thirteen trees along the Parkway were removed, including a specimen of a rare Slash Pine subspecies that was part of the local Arboretum collection. Two of the three remaining trees were visibly weaker specimens that are now more susceptible to adverse weather after the dominant trees that sheltered them were removed (Figure 1d).

Two weeks later, during a City Council meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh would tell the citizens of Aiken that the beginning of the $1.4 million streetscape project—which was already $0.5 million over budget—should have been a “joyous occasion.” 

Yet, unlike most “joyous occasions,” the start of work was never accompanied by a ribbon-cutting ceremony. Nor was it ever publicly announced. 

Despite an Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) sign (Figure 1c), implanted eight months earlier, that announced an impending redevelopment project, very few people had been made aware of the impending wholesale remake of the Parkway—from a natural parklike setting to a generic, cookie-cutter landscape.

Unlike most signage advertising a promising future, the landscape vision was absent from the AMDC sign. People were informed that something was coming, but not of what was to come. 

Despite the project vision being two years old, and City Council having given the green light to procuring funding for a redevelopment project, not a single public hearing or even informational meeting revealing the details had ever been held. That remains true to this day. 

While the project was not a secret, it was probably the least publicized of impending joyous occasions in the local history of million dollar projects. Whereas Project Pascalis was rightfully criticized for its fragmented and often minimalist approach to the citizen input process, the Farmers Market project was almost entirely devoid of public involvement—it was almost purely a city staff concoction that moved forward with an indirect nod from City Council, while ignoring Farmers Market customers and vendors as well as the broader taxpaying public. 

The combined lack of public notice and citizen involvement was a strong contributing cause of the outcry to the hacking of the Farmers Market Parkway’s stand of trees. Antonyms of joy ranging from anger and anguish to discontent, exasperation, and vexation characterized the dominant emotions of the following weeks. 

Those sentiments incited a maelstrom at City Hall. One employee described the external uproar as requiring “triage.” (Figure 2)

Figure 2: Reaction of one city employee to public outrage at the near-total removal of the stand of trees surrounding Farmers Market.

On June 2nd, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh wrote to his various responsible department heads—planning, economic development, public works, engineering and utilities—-to order an investigation into the “subpar” project beginning and an internal policy to prevent “such an atrocious” event from ever happening again (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Memorandum from City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh to five of his department heads, representing Economic Development (Tim O’Briant), Planning (Marya Moultrie), Engineering and Utilities (Michael Przbylowicz), Public Works (Lex Kirkland), and Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (Jessica Cambpbell). Documents obtained via FOIA show that, in the aftermath of the “atrocious” event, there was very little internal finger-pointing, a good deal of blame avoidance, and a near absence of genuine root cause analysis-=-one that would have found that the internal review process was not the problem, the problem was the complete lack of external review in the form of public review and input of the Farmers Market project—and to a similar extent all city projects.


When Mr. Bedenbaugh addressed the situation at the next City Council meeting on June 12th, his words were more constrained, stating that he shared the community’s “indignation.”

Council members followed suit, with Mayor Rick Osbon stating the “trees should not have been cut down;” although in reality the trees that were cut down, with the exception of one smaller maple in the midcanopy cut for utilities access, were the exact trees that the year-old plan identified for cutting and removal.

But for some reason, Bedenbaugh did not disclose his strong and succinct memo that called for a new internal policy. Instead, he described any internal review as a “staff matter;” while stating “the review process for our (city) projects must conform to the same process as a private developer.”

The Internal Project Review determined that “it has not been common practice for city projects to be processed through the typical development review process that commercial developments are required to complete. Consensus was that all future City projects must undergo this same review process.” 

The end result was an internal policy (Figure 4) that mirrored the internal review findings; one that mandates the City follow the same procedures on City projects as it requires of developers on private projects; and also placed more oversight power with the City Manager’s office.

Figure 4: New Internal Policy for City Projects. (Click to enlarge).

However, the “do our projects like we require developers to do theirs” policy has one glaring omission—the presence of public input and hearings. The new policy only mandates internal staff review akin to that of private developments.

Private developers have to go above and beyond mere staff review—they are subjected to a more rigorous public review process that involves at least three public hearings—one before the semi-autonomous Planning Commission, and two before City Council. In some instances the Design Review Board requires a hearing.

While most commercial developments sail through the public review process, without some citizen scrutiny every development would get a much easier pass.

In the past 18 months, one residential development (Henderson Downs) did not even make it past the Planning Commission level; two others (Mayfield Drive Estates and Sundy Street Apartments) stalled while compromises were made with residents of older, well-established neighborhoods; Parker’s Kitchen at Whiskey Road died during the second public hearing before City Council; and the 
Silver Bluff Overlay District plan died after City Council removed it from the agenda—a direct result of strong discontent from county residents who want less, not more, intrusion by the City into the unincorporated county. 

Finally, the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, after receiving one approval by both City Council and County Council, withered on the development vine after City Council opted to avoid further controversy; with County Council citing a very real sewage capacity shortfall for their decision. 

In short, citizen involvement and review at multiple levels is a proven remedy for stifling misguided projects or for making other developments more compatible with existing neighborhoods. 

Why does the City of Aiken refuse to allow the same process for projects on public property, especially after the Farmer’s Market fiasco? 

The Farmer’s Market streetscape project is hardly the only one on City property to avoid public scrutiny in the form of Public Hearings, with the City opting instead for a fragmented and incomplete system of scattered meetings at best. Other examples include the proposed Greenway Trail, Smith-Hazel Park redevelopment, Generations Park expansion, management of the Brunswick Tract, and the fate of the City’s remaining property in The Alley.

When will the City of Aiken relearn that area residents are there to contribute in meaningful ways that make developments of all stripes more compatible with their surroundings; or in the worst of circumstances there to provide the gut check to just say no to a bad idea? 

Seeking early and meaningful citizen input and scrutiny on city projects and new major ordinances has to be a better idea than cutting and removing public involvement like a grand Farmer’s Market tree.


Coming Next: Farmer’s Market Project: What Went Wrong?

References:

FOIA #235-2024 files: New Internal Policy for city projects and 5-page Internal Review of Williamsburg Street Project.

Bibliography of Past Stories

Farmer’s Market Revitilization Project Underway was the first area news story on the near-total removal of the Farmer’s Market stand of trees. .

The Williamsburg 10 provided the precise details of the near-total removal of the Farmer’s Market stand of trees.

Four Well Lit Trees and Plan A and Amended Plan A examined what the real plan was versus the perceived plans.

Poised for the Next Phase of the Farmers Market-Williamsburg Streeet Demolition exposed how city officials were poised to continue the project with little to no public notice.

Whose Project is it Again…Bueller highlighted the bureaucratic football of blame surrounding the controversy.

Divesting of Parks and Open Space, from September 2022, detailed how the City of Aiken was preparing to close neighborhood parks and possibly privatize Farmers Market.

The City of Aiken’s Law Firm: More Than The City Attorney.

Alongside City Managers, City Attorneys are among two of the most powerful unelected officials in most municipalities. The Aiken City Attorney has served at the pleasure of Aiken City Council since the Council-Manager form of government was adopted in the mid-1950s.

Since 2012, Aiken’s Municipal Code has dictated that the City Manager is responsible for preparing the City Attorney’s contract, which Council must then approve.

Attorney Gary Smith III has served as the City Attorney since 1995. No formal contract, as defined by city code, exists between him and the City Council.

According to City of Aiken records, the City Attorney’s office is composed not only of Mr. Smith, but the entire law firm of Smith Massey Brodie Guynn and Mayes (SMBGM); some of whose members perform city work under his direction on an as-needed basis. One prominent example from May 2021 involved a title search and document preparation directly related to Project Pascalis.


By Don Moniak
August 10, 2024

Local governments employ legal counsel that provide a variety of legal services, including preparation of ordinances, contracts, and leases; providing legal representation and advice; filing court actions against nuisance properties; acting as the Parliamentarian during public meetings and hearings; and recommending other attorneys for more time-consuming, specialized, and complex legal matters.

South Carolina towns, cities, and counties can hire full-time, in-house attorneys whose only client is the government body; or independent contractors that may be part-time and have private clients. Independent contractors are also not subject to the state’s ethics laws.

Aiken County employs the in-house approach, with Attorney Brad Farrar occupying the position. The Cities of Aiken and North Augusta both employ independent contractors—Gary Smith III and Kelly Zier, respectively. (In most situations, the prosecution of criminal cases is tasked to the Solicitor’s offices).

Aiken City Attorney’s Office: 1958-1994

In 1958 Aiken City Council approved its first City Code of Ordinances after the formal adoption in 1955 of a Council-Manager form of government. Section 4.01 stated that the City Attorney “shall be appointed by and subject to removal by the City Council.”

By the time the City Code was revised in 1980, both changes in wording and structure had occurred.

First, a Department of Legal Services had been established that included both a City Attorney and a City Solicitor; with the latter representing the city in all “criminal and related proceedings” and the former representing the City in other matters.

Second, the new code stated that “The city attorney and city solicitor shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, and be subject to removal by the city council. The city council at its discretion may appoint one person to serve as the city attorney/city solicitor, and in the event of such appointment, it shall be considered one position or office.”

From 1985 to 1993, the late Attorney Jim Holly was the last City Attorney to hold this in-house, dual role.

In October 1993, Mr. Holly requested that Council convert him to a part-time status as City Attorney, with a “full-time staff attorney that will also serve as the City Solicitor.” In February 1994, this arrangement was formally approved when Council appointed Paul Anderson as City Solicitor.

After converting to part-time status, Mr. Holly became a concurrent partner in the law firm of (Robin) Braithwaite, (Clark) McCants III, (James) Holly, and (Gary) Smith III. The firm’s specialty was representation of insurance firms. The only local clients were SRP Credit Union and the City of Aiken.

Figure 1. Colony Park Drive offices of SMBGM.

The Gary Smith III Era: 1995 to Present. 

After City Attorney Holly resigned in early 1995, attorney Gary Smith III, who had also joined Braithwaite et al as a partner in 1992, submitted a proposal to City Council to become the next part-time City Attorney, again operating as an independent contractor. The proposal implied that the entire law firm was also under retainer: 

“We would like to propose offering our firm’s services to the City of Aiken in the following manner. The City would pay a monthly retainer of $2,500 at the beginning of the month. The present retainer is $3,000. In return for this retainer, the City would receive up to 30 hours of billable time. Any hours over this 30-hour minimum would be billed to the City at the rate of $80 per hour—the present billing rate is $90 per hour.” (emphasis added in italics). (Pages 7-11) 

On July 24, 1995, after receiving several other resumes during the search for Holly’s replacement, Aiken City Council held a Special-Called Meeting to discuss appointing Mr. Smith. At the end of the meeting, he was approved by a unanimous vote. The meeting minutes read: 

Councilman Radford moved, seconded by Councilman Perry and unanimously approved, that Gary H. Smith III, of Braithwaite, McCants Holly & Smith Attorneys, be appointed to serve as part-time City Attorney on a monthly retainer basis.”

Braithwaite, McCants, and Holley all moved on to different practices, and Braithwaite et al was gradually supplanted as the City’s law firm by Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn and Mayes (SMBGM); whose website lists a founding date of 1992–the same year Smith became a partner in Braithwaite et al. 

Unlike Braithwaite et al, SMBGM specialized in different areas of the law. No longer was the city employing a firm whose clients were predominantly distant insurance companies; it was employing a firm that also eventually specialized in real estate law—much of which involved local cases.

In 2001, City Council adopted another updated Code of Ordinances, but not until 2012 did the Ordinance governing the Department of Legal Services change. 

That change came in March of 2012, when City Council amended that part of the city code, Section 2-281, pertaining to the legal department. The amendment (Figure 2) involved three substantive changes that all increased the power of the City Manager over the legal department.

First, the City Manager was granted the power of consent to combine or dissolve a combined City Attorney/City Solicitor position.

Second, in the absence of a combined position, the City Manager was granted the power to appoint, and terminate, the City Solicitor, giving them full authority over the position.

Then-City Manager Richard Pearce explained that it was already the practice for the City Manager to supervise, and evaluate the performance of, the City Solicitor. He rationalized that the practice was at odds with City Code, and the code needed to be consistent with the practice.

However, the power to appoint the Solicitor had not been the practice prior to the amendment. As it was written, the City Council relinquished power in a manner that provided the City Manager veto power over any decision by Council to restore a combined City Attorney/City Solicitor position.

The amendment also mandated that a contract for both offices “be prepared by the city manager’s office;” with contract terms to include “compensation details, malpractice insurance coverage requirements, worker’s compensation insurance requirements, and other details which may be deemed important by the city manager and city council.”

Figure 2: 2012 Amendment to City Code of Ordinances pertaining to the Department of Legal Services.


No such contract has ever been produced for the City Attorney position. In neither of the meeting minutes for 3/12/12 and 3/26/12 were there discussions of a grandfather clause for Mr. Smith; nor were there any indications of when or if Council expected a contract to be produced and executed for the City Attorney position.

On December 28, 2016, Mr. Smith wrote to then City-manager John Klimm to ask for an increase in his firm’s retainer fee, indicating again that it was the firm being hired, not just himself, and that the firm’s other attorneys could work on city business “when their services may be needed.” This ultimately meant that the fees charged by the firm were in fact variable.

The letter read, in part:

“Currently, the City pays my firm a monthly retainer of $3,000.00. In return, the City receives 30 hours of legal services. Additional hours are charged at the rate of $110.00. This rate schedule has been in effect since 2002. I am aware that my firm receives a substantial amount of fees from the City each year. I do want you to be aware that this hourly rate is substantially lower than my usual hourly rate of $400.00 that I charge my private clients.

I would propose to modify my firm’s fee agreement as follows. The monthly retainer would be increased to $4,000.00 with the City still receiving 30 hours worth of service. The City would be billed for hours in excess of the 30 hours at the rate of $150.00 per hour. When services may be needed from other lawyers in my firm, those services will be billed to the City at their normal billing rate. I know this is a significant increase, however, it is the first time I have asked for a modification of the fee arrangement since 2002.” (emphasis in italics added).

Mr. Klimm did not prepare a contract for City Council review. Meeting agendas for both of Council’s January of 2017 meetings do not indicate that he informed Council of the pay increase. The 2016 fee arrangement, coupled with the 1995 proposal, continues to function as a contract—one which only identifies compensation but no other elements of the city code’s requirements.

(The current legal requirements for the Department of Legal Services remain defined by Section 2-281 of City Code.)

The Firm’s City Workload

Section 2-285(9) of the Aiken Municipal Code allows for the City Attorney to “assign any of his duties “to another attorney retained or employed by the city.”

Those attorneys, as inferred in Mr. Smith’s 1995 letter and described more directly in his 2016 letter, can include his law firm partners and associates. The 1995 and 2016 letters apparently provide that engagement commitment.

It is difficult to gauge what percentage of the City Attorney’s office workload is completed by other members of the SMBGM law firm. The firm’s invoices to the City for the period between January 2021 to May 2023 show at least 53 billing entries involving Gary Smith’s partners or associates (Table 1).

SMBGM Law PartnerNumber of Interactions
Brad Brodie4
Mary Guynn46
Ray Massey2
Scott Patterson1
Table 1: Number of billing entries for interactions involving SMBGM partners or associates; based on invoices obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests. The invoices provided have enough redactions, under the guise of attorney-client privilege, to shroud the purpose of any billing that involved his partners or associates. In other words, it is difficult to decide whether the billings were for city business, private business, and/or an adversarial situation. Only unredacted invoices would set the record straight.


Only three separate invoices from an SMBGM partner were included in the billing invoices obtained via FOIA requests. All three were from Attorney Mary Guynn. One involved a Smith-Hazel Park matter, but two other matters were redacted.

The Project Pascalis Job

Up until Project Pascalis, complaints of real or perceived conflicts of interest involving the City Attorney’s office were absent from the public record (2); and any ethics concerns would probably have remained under the radar, if they even existed, if not for SMBGM partner Ray Massey’s involvement in the Pascalis project.

Figure 3: April 30, 2021 meetings between City Attorney Gary Smith and two of his partners. The redacted lines are believed to say “status of the Shah and Anderson property,” and “status of Project Pascalis.”

As explained in The Pascalis Attorneys and The AECOM Plan, the first rendition of Project Pascalis began to quickly unravel on April 30, 2021. That day Smith had separate meetings, of which the subject is redacted, with partners Mary Guynn and Ray Massey. (The subject of the Guynn meeting appears to end with “property.”)

After May 6, 2021, the AMDC, City of Aiken, and the Aiken Chamber of Commerce scrambled to salvage the Project Pascalis property acquisition contracts held by WTC Investments LLC (Agent: Ray Massey). The process involved a title search and preparation of an “assignment” contract to transfer $9.5 million worth of Purchase and Sales Agreements (PSAs) from WTC to the Chamber of Commerce in what functioned to be a property holding contract for the City.

As a result of the transfer of control of the Pascalis properties, WTC Investments did not lose $135,000 in earnest monies.

The legal agent for WTC Investments LLC was, and remains, SMGBM partner Ray Massey; who in part represented WTC during the purchase negotiations for the Pascalis properties, and assisted with the contract preparations. And, as explained in the Project Pascalis Includes the Alley series, Massey was the leader of the investment group Aiken Alley Holdings, which owned a key property in the first version of the Pascalis project (3).

An SMBGM invoice for June 30, 2021, submitted under Ms. Guynn’s company email account, involves work completed by Guynn towards transferring control of the Pascalis properties to the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) and City of Aiken via the Chamber of Commerce.

The invoice was broken down into two billings for May 17, 2021—document preparation and a title search (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Invoice from Mary Guynn for work related to Project Pascalis. The title searches are obviously related to the project, as they were required for the transfer, or “assignment” of the Purchase and Sale Agreements (PSAs) held by WTC Investments to the Aiken Chamber of Commerce. The 2.3 hours, upon information and belief, involved the preparation of the Assignment documents. The May 2021 invoice from the only other attorney to work on the project, Gary Pope Jr of the Pope-Flynn law firm, billed no work for the period May 6 to May 31st. This left only the City Attorney’s law firm as the best and only available candidate to prepare an Assignment of a Purchase and Sale Agreement—as Ms. Guynn is a prolific and highly competent real estate attorney. City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, who is known to quickly deny allegations, has twice refused to confirm or deny that SMBGM prepared the Assignments of the Pascalis properties to the Chamber of Commerce, an action that saved WTC Investments $135,000 in earnest monies. In other words, it makes good sense for Guynn to have prepared the contracts—-except for the fact that the original contracts were prepared by members of SMBGM and the contracts involved the city obtaining commercial properties at a cost of $9.6 million.

SMGBM partner Ray Massey is the registered agent for WTC, represented the firm in negotiations for the Pascalis properties, and led an investment group whose property was within the original Project Pascalis footprint. Unless the City of Aiken provides an unredacted version of this invoice and discloses its contents, there is no way of knowing whether or not it states “Assignment of Shah and Anderson properties to Aiken Chamber of Commerce.” But, based on all available information, the wording in red is considered accurate.


According to SMBGM’s May of 2021 invoices, Smith communicated with Guynn via email twice and in a meeting once on May 17th. Two of the billings involved document reviews, while another involved a meeting. Another billing entry on May 14th names both Guynn and AMDC Executive Director and Pascalis project organizer Tim O’Briant. That was the day that WTC and the Chamber almost consummated the sale of property that WTC did not own. (4)

One week later the Pascalis properties were assigned to the Aiken Chamber of Commerce; meaning that at least some of real estate legal work—that was technically conducted on behalf of the Chamber, and which saved Ray Massey’s client and investment partner WTC Investments, LLC, $135,000 in earnest monies—was billed to the City of Aiken.

Figure 5. Screenshot of the part of the May 2021 SMBGM invoice with billing information from City Attorney Gary Smith.

_______________

Coming Next: The City of Aiken’s Alley Project is Another Long Mismanaged Situation.

Footnotes:

(1) Photo of the 1980 City of Aiken Code governing the qualifications and many of the duties of the City Attorney position. The current qualifications and job requirements are in Section 2-281 of the city code.


(2) Up until the late 2010s, it does not appear that any SMBGM partner was involved with city-related business that involved city property or the potential expenditure of city funds to subsidize a public-private partnership project.

Although SMBGM partner Ray Massey was involved with WTC Investments LLC in the failed effort to redevelop the Old Hospital property on Richland Avenue, no issue was raised regarding Gary Smith’s lack of a recusal.

Nor was the issue raised in 2021 when two parcels of city property were sold to an associate in SMBGM, Scott Patterson, for $150,000. Although the sale was approved in September 2021, a title dispute created by a “scrivener’s error” prevented the closing until June 2022. During that time, Mr. Patterson represented the City of Aiken in court proceedings to rectify the title situation. In June 2023, half of the property was sold for $280,000; yielding a $130,000 profit in one year; with two more acres still on the market.

Smith did on occasion properly recuse himself when his partners were involved, even peripherally, in any city-related business; a practice that increased after ethics issues were raised during Project Pascalis and in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit where Smith was named as a defendant. He was also named as a defendant in two appeals of the Newberry Street privatization ordinance.

All those cases were dismissed due to jurisdictional issues—the SC Ethics Commission, and not State District Courts, are considered the arbiter for all ethics complaints involving public officials.

Smith is not considered a public officer or member by the Commission, and instead is considered an independent contractor. As such, he falls under the Commission’s precedent-setting ruling in 2014 that independent contractors are not subject to state ethics law.

(3) In the May 4, 2021, memorandum to the AMDC Executive Committee, AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant described an offer from Weldon Wyatt:

“(Wyatt) asked about our interest in the Alley fronting properties (likely $3 million) and the Harrison insurance parcel ($700,000 +). He would very much like those included in any deal. I told him we had no interest and could complete a slimmed project on solely the Shah and Anderson parcels.”

The “Alley fronting properties” had been purchased by Aiken Alley Holdings LLC on March 15, 2021. At the time of the memo, WTC Investments, LLC had a contract to purchase the adjacent Harrison insurance building on Newberry Street. Sometime after May 6th that contract was assigned to Aiken Alley Holdings, which bought the property on June 6, 2021.

(4) On May 14, 2021, WTC and the Chamber were prepared to sign a Purchase and Sale Agreement (Figure 6) for the “Shah Property”—but WTC only owned the right to buy the property, not the right to sell it.

Thus, an assignment of the property contract from WTC to the Chamber had to first occur. It is believed to have been prepared by the City Attorney’s law firm, and then passed on to the involved parties.

A document titled “HotelAiken.doc” was forwarded by Tim O’Briant to Ray Massey on May 18th; with O’Briant writing “Does this suit you all?”

Massey replied, “Let me get with Chip (Goforth);” a partner in WTC Investments (“the “C” in WTC).

The date of the final transactions was May 25, 2021. First, the assignment was signed (Figure 7). Then, a newly prepared PSA between the Shah family’s entities and the Chamber was signed (Figure 8). The latter PSA included the provision that the Chamber could make a future assigment to the City of Aiken or the AMDC. (Figure 9). The same process occurred with the Anderson Property (Newberry Hall) on June 3, 2021.

Six months later, the AMDC would acquire the properties for the original collective price of $9.6 million, thus formally initiating the second version of Project Pascalis; and eventually kicking off perhaps the most contentious debates ever over the future of downtown Aiken. A month after the AMDC acquired the properties, a Purchase and Sale Agreement was signed with RPM Development Partners. RPM, which stands for Raines, Purser, and Massey, had Ray Massey sign that contract to purchase the Pascalis properties for $5 million—a nearly fifty percent reduction in the price paid by the AMDC.

Figure 6: The legally invalid May 14th PSA between WTC and Chamber of Commerce.

Figure 7: Signatures for the Assignment document between WTC and the Chamber, which was necessary prior to the Chamber signing a PSA with the various Shah entities.
Figure 8: PSA signatures of Chamber of Commerce and the various Shah family enterprises.

Figure 9: Assignment language in the May 25, 2021, Shah-Chamber PSA.


Working Towards a More Generic Community: Aiken’s “Retail Strategies” Contract.

In March 2022 the City of Aiken entered into a $125,000 partnership with Alabama-based consulting firm Retail Strategies, with a goal of recruiting more regional and national retail brands to Aiken—including dollar and mattress stores. The company was retained despite the fact that its recruitment portfolio was dominated by companies already present in Aiken, and more national and regional brand retailers were already moving into the city, especially along the Whiskey Road and Silver Bluff Road corridors. If successful, the contract with Retail Strategies will help to continue to make Aiken a more generic community.

by Don Moniak
July 29, 2024

Does the City of Aiken need help in attracting national and regional chain retailers and restaurants? The answer, according to city officials, is yes.

On March 3, 2022, the City of Aiken’s Economic Development Department inked a three-year, $125,000 contract with Retail Strategies to develop and execute a national and regional brand retail recruitment plan on behalf of the city. The contract was signed in lieu of any competitive procurement process or approval by City Council (1).

Two months after the signing of the contract, Retail Strategies issued a news release announcing a partnership with Aiken that originated in Las Vegas:

After conversations at ICSC Las Vegas, the nation’s largest retail real estate trade show, Aiken city leaders wanted the Retail Strategies team to represent their city to the retail community.”

The Retail Strategies news release utilized a photo of The Brew Pub, a popular, locally-owned restaurant and brewery that closed in early 2023–even though the Retail Strategies business model does not involve assisting small, locally-owned businesses whose profits generally remain in, and are reinvested in, the community. Instead, the company helps recruit National competitors whose profits are more prone to leaving the area, sometimes to the benefit of private equity firms (2), and sometimes to the detriment of locally-owned small businesses.

Who is Retail Strategies and what is their mission in Aiken? 

Retail Strategies touts itself as, “The national expert in recruiting businesses and strategically developing communities.”

The company’s mission in Aiken was to help the City “understand and identify their redevelopment and retail recruitment goals,” and develop a “tailored retail recruitment plan based on in-depth market analysis, consumer analysis and real estate assessment and proactive retail and broker outreach program.” 

Who does Retail Strategies recruit? On its “Success Stories” page, the company touts its accomplishments in five Southeastern localities: Newberry, SC; High Point, NC; Union County, SC; Albemarle, NC; and Jasper, Alabama.

Of the five, Union County, Albemarle, and Jasper are in economically stressed areas with considerably higher poverty rates and unemployment and lower income levels, and generally lacking the national chains that are already present in more affluent cities and counties like Aiken.

The cumulative list of recruits to the five localities sounds like a Who’s Who of existing national and regional chains in Aiken (Table 1). 

RetailerPresence in Aiken 
ALDIWhiskey Road 
Badcock FurnitureWest Richland Ave. 
Big LotsSilver Bluff (closing)
VerizonSouthside (1) Northside (1)
Chick-fil-AWhiskey Road
Dunkin DonutsWhiskey Road, West Richland 
Firehouse SubsWest Richland
Five Below*Whiskey Road
Harbor FreightWhiskey Road 
Hobby LobbyWhiskey Road
Huddle House**Closed all locations
Mighty DollarNot present
PetcoSilver Bluff
Planet FitnessWhiskey Road
Rose’s ExpressWest Richland
Ollie’s Bargain OutletWest Richland 
Farmer’s Home FurnitureSilver Bluff Road 
Jersey Mike’s Whiskey Road
Kay Jeweler’s Silver Bluff Road
Mattress Firm Whiskey Road (2) 
Papa John’s University Parkway
PetCoSilver Bluff Road
Petsmart Whiskey Road 
Planet Fitness Whiskey Road
Popeye’sYork Street
PublixWhiskey Road (Silver Bluff-planned)
O’Reilly Auto PartsDowntown Richland Avenue
Rose’s West Richland Avenue
StarbucksWhiskey Road, USCA
SupercutsWhiskey Road
T-MobileWhiskey Road
Taco BellWhiskey Road, West Richland
TJ MaxxSilver Bluff Road 
VerizonWhiskey Road, West Richland 
Waffle HouseWest Richland, Whiskey Road, York Street
Wendy’s West Richland, Whiskey Road
Table 1: Listing of national and regional brand businesses targeted by Retail Strategies that already have a presence in Aiken. *Five Below, a retail store specializing in products with a price point of five dollars or less, moved into the Target Shopping Center in Aiken in 2023. Retail Strategies monitored the situation but did not take credit for the company’s move into the Aiken market. ** Huddle House’s West Richland Avenue location closed, but was replaced by the locally-owned business, “The Flippin’ Egg.”

There are companies on the Retail Strategies success list that are not in the Aiken Market, including the $1.25-per-item discount chain Mighty Dollar; restaurant chains Dickey’s BBQ, East Coast Wings and Grille, Freddy’s Frozen Custards, Texas Roadhouse, Wingstop, and Highway 55 Burgers; retail clothing stores Burke’s Outlet and Shoe Carnival; and Take 5 Oil Change.  

The Aiken Results to Date

On March 25, 2024, Retail Strategies provided an update at a City Council work session on its efforts and the status of potential national and regional brands; summarized in a lightly redacted chart titled “Active Recruitment Prospects (Figure 1).

The list reads more like a monitoring effort than an update on recruitment. The actual connection between Retail Strategies and companies already seeking a presence in Aiken appeared tenuous; company reps provided City Council with no success stories similar to those in other regional markets.

This is to be expected when Whiskey Road, Silver Bluff Road, and West Richland Avenue already have high occupancy rates of national and regional retailers. And, in fact, the contract technically only mandates the company make contacts with 30 retailers, not actively recruitment 30 retailers.

Figure 1: Redacted Listing of National and Regional Brand “Prospects”


In regard to the redacted company names and road locations, the consultant explained that the rationale of the redactions was to avoid revealing company names and potential locations, which in turn could provoke speculation in local real estate. But in a small town like Aiken with only several commercial districts, the redactions seem superfluous.

Among the redactions are:

  • Two “National Grocers” projects that are already in progress. It was common knowledge at the time that Lowe’s was establishing its presence at Powderhouse and Whiskey Roads—and has since opened its first store in the area. The second grocer is Publix, which was in the pre-construction phase of a second South Aiken location adjacent to the Village at Woodside along Silver Bluff Road—commonly known information that Retail Strategies chose to unnecessarily redact. Neither development has any identifiable connection with the Retail Strategies contract.
  • A regional convenience store (C-Store) chain seeking four locations in the market. Parker’s Kitchen is commonly known to be that C-Store. It has opened one location along West Richland Avenue that was approved in May 2022; is developing a second on East Pine Log Road, and sought to build one on “the Southern end of Whiskey Road,” another commonly known fact that Retail Strategies chose to redact. Again, there is no indication that Retail Strategies recruited Parker’s Kitchen.
  • The business that was reluctant about being “away from the center of synergy” clearly had the Whiskey Road and/or Silver Bluff Road corridors in mind. 
  • The “Aiken Development Project” now appears to be Rutland Place, which is described as a “mixed use” development across from Aiken High School, and was recently approved by Aiken City Council.  

One primary recruitment contractual focus area identified by Retail Strategies is a “grocery-anchored shopping center,” ostensibly on the northeast side of town where residents have experienced a decrease in grocery options in this century. But no such prospect is listed as the company enters the last year of its contract.

Northside residents hopeful for a store to compete with KJ’s are often told that “retail follows rooftops,” a sentiment that was repeated by City officials at the March 25th meeting.

However, Retail Strategies presented a different viewpoint, that
“Retail builds on retail.” In a graphic titled “Retail Recruitment Ladder,” (Figure 2), the company presents 27 national firms; of which 21 are already in Aiken. Everyone of the 21 companies in Aiken has a store on the Southside; only four have a second store on the Northside.

In essence, the City pursued a six-figure consulting contract that, if successful, was more likely to lead to more congestion on Whiskey and Silver Bluff Roads.

In addition, subsidizing any recruitment of national or regional retailers has the potential to harm locally-owned small businesses. Putting a photo of the former Brew Pub on a news release touting the $125,000 (4). Retail Strategies contract does not change the latter dynamic of trading uniqueness for a more generic community flavor.

Figure 2: Retail Strategies “Retail Recruitment Ladder,” presented at the Aiken City Council’s March 25, 2024, work session. Emphasis added in red.

Footnotes

(1) The City of Aiken did not actually “select” Retail Strategies in the traditional procurement sense.  According to the City’s procurement website, there was no bidding process for national brand recruitment services. The lack of a procurement process, which is required for professional service contracts over $25,000, was confirmed in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

In the absence of a competitive procurement process, only City Council can approve contracts greater than $25,000; as it did with the City’s $250,000 contract with the Aiken Corporation for “predevelopment work” of the SRNL project. 

In addition, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh has declined to either confirm or deny whether the funding derived from the hospitality tax revenue budgeted for use by the City’s former Economic Development Department.

(2) Local National Brand businesses owned, now or in the recent past, by private equity firms include Petsmart and Petco.

(3) Retail Strategies success stories: 

Albemarle, North Carolina: 

Dickey’s BBQ ($605,000) has created 10 jobs; East Coast Wings and Grill ($1.5 million) has created 20 jobs; Farmer’s Furniture ($2.4 million) has created 5 jobs; Highway 55 Burgers, Shakes and Fries ($1 million) has created 20 jobs; Ollie’s Bargain Outlet ($4.33 million) has created 30 jobs; PetSmart ($5.022 million) has created 29 jobs; Chick-fil-A ($2.09 million) has created 36 jobs; Verizon ($3 million) has created 10 jobs; Rose’s Express ($3.5 million) has created 25 jobs; Harbor Freight ($3 million) has created 15 jobs; Planet Fitness ($550,000) has created 10 jobs.” 

Union, SC: 

Harbor Freight, Starbucks, Wendy’s

Newberry, SC 

To date Starbucks, Firehouse Subs, Mighty Dollar, Papa John’s, Big Lots, Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Harbor Freight Tools, Burke’s Outlet, Taco Bell, and Huddle House have all opened locations in the market.

High Point, NC

Publix, ALDI, O’Reilly Auto Parts, Jersey Mike’s, Kay Jewelers, Take 5 Oil Change, Wingstop, Texas Roadhouse, and more.

Jasper Alabama

ALDI, Dunham’s Sports, Five Below, Harbor Freight Tools, Hobby Lobby, TJ Maxx, Huddle House, Dunkin’ Donuts, Freddy’s Frozen Custard, Mattress Firm, Petco, Planet Fitness, Shoe Carnival, Supercuts, Waffle House, Wendy’s, and Badcock Furniture 

4. How much is $125,000?

On September 11, 2023, Aiken City Council debated whether to give fire engine operators a 4% or an 8% raise. The latter involved $64,000.