Delivered before Aiken City Council on October 24, 2022
Aiken resident Bruce Stemerman delivered the following statement before Aiken City Council on Monday, October 24, 2022. He was one of several citizens to speak before Council during the public meeting.
My name is Bruce Stemerman. I live on Chime Bell Church Road. My wife and I moved to Aiken just a few months ago. Similar to many others who have moved here over the years, Aiken’s delightful downtown district was an important contributing factor in our decision to relocate here from Charleston, SC.
I was dismayed by the Project Pascalis from the first I learned of it. I was able to get up to speed on the proposed plans thanks to the outstanding and thorough reporting in the Aiken Chronicles, the Do It Right group, among others, and conversations with lots of concerned citizens. I felt the project proposed for the very heart of the City’s downtown was way out of scale and if developed would have a material adverse impact on what makes downtown Aiken unique, distinctive and attractive. Something I should add — the community’s impressive activism on this topic has only reinforced our decision about relocating here.
I believe the main focus should be on restoring and renovating the Hotel Aiken. It will no doubt be a challenging project, but no more so than the multitude of similar restoration projects undertaken around this state, country, and world every year. Those who attended the Historic Aiken Foundation’s excellent Preservation Workshop on September 28th heard from noted experts, including a son of Aiken, about the significant and long term benefits associated with preserving and celebrating historic buildings. It was very persuasive and supported by considerable factual research, and I assume that all of you either attended in person or have watched the video. I hope that’s the case.
So here’s what I would do if I ruled the world, and that would be a scary thing, I admit it, but here’s what I would do.
Number one, I’d take immediate steps to prevent and mitigate any further deterioration to the main Hotel Aiken building; number two, provide support and financial assistance for the several small local businesses which have been significantly and negatively impacted by the uncertainty from the threatened demolition of the spaces they operate in; and three, issue a request for proposal for the renovation, restoration, and management of the Hotel Aiken.
These steps will enhance the legacy of this council, in my view, as will abandoning any further consideration of a multi-level parking garage and a superflouous conference center in downtown Aiken.
You may also want to consider these questions relating to the AMDC:
– Has that committee served this Council and the community well? – Has it positively impacted the goodwill between City government and the citizens it serves? – Did the committee follow established City policies and procedures? – Has it failed to carry out its own mission?
When you think about the time, energy and dollars wasted by the AMDC, I hope you’ll conclude that it should be dissolved.
My sincere appreciation of the council for this opportunity to express my views.
Mr. Stemerman’s statement to Aiken City Council begins shortly after minute 15:15 on the video below.
The watchdog organization Savannah River Site Watch issued the following news release today detailing the status of the proposed Plutonium Pit Fabrication Plant at the Savannah River Site, located south of Aiken, SC and west of Barnwell, SC. Plutonium pits are nuclear weapon components composed of machined plutonium and other essential parts; and form the core of the primary nuclear explosive in advanced modern weapons. They are surrounded by high explosives and function to trigger the nuclear blast in most nuclear explosives.
DOE Official Reveals Costly 6-Month Delay in Proposed SRS Plutonium Bomb Plant (PBP); As Russia, U.S. Threaten Nuclear War $11.5 Billion Pit Plant Key to New U.S. Nuclear Weapons and Irresponsible Planning for Full-Scale Nuclear War
DOE Official Heightens Concerns about Controversial Plutonium Bomb Plant at Savannah River Site by Admitting an Additional 6-Month Delay in the Project; Cost Could Jump $375 Million, to $11.5 Billion
As Russia and the U.S. Recklessly Flirt with Nuclear War, the Plutonium “Pit” Facility in South Carolina Would Play Key Role in New Nuclear Weapons Integral to Planning for Nuclear War
10/24/22 Aiken City Council Meeting Review, Part 2 by Don Moniak
October 26, 2022
The third item of new business on City Council’s agenda Monday night was the eagerly anticipated repeal of the Newberry Street privatization ordinance—passed unanimously on March 28, 2022, and by a vote of 6-1 on May 9, 2022. The ordinance allowed the city to “convey” a portion of Newberry Street to Pascalis project developer RPM Development Partners, LLC (RPM) (1) if and when a master development agreement was signed between RPM and the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) to pursue Project Pascalis.
The ordinance also included an “exchange” of property, with two smaller parcels owned by RPM collaborator Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC being transferred to city control. However, since the same property would ultimately end up in RPM’s possession following construction, any public benefit from that provision was always a murky matter.
121 Newberry Street, former home of Joe Harrison’s State Farm Office. Purchased by Aiken Alley Holdings for $625,000 in March, 2021. The building was part of a demolition application submitted in late June, 2022 (top photo) and withdrawn less than a week later. The building is presently marketed for a one-year lease at $1,800 per month.
The repeal of the ordinance is being pursued for two official reasons:
On September 14, 2022, RPM terminated its contract with the AMDC to purchase seven AMDC-owned properties; owned by the AMDC since November, 2022. The AMDC purhcase was funded by a $9.6 million city municipal bond issuance.
On September 29, 2022, the remnants of the former nine-member AMDC voted 5-0 to render null and void the Purchase and Sale agreement that RPM had terminated two weeks prior.
The reading of the ordinance was preceded by a formal recusal by City Attorney Gary Smith, whose legal firm’s partners include RPM and Aiken Alley Holdings investor and agent Ray Massey. Smith’s failure to recuse himself—and refrain from advocating for the privatization effort—during the first reading on March 28th drew substantial public ire and the unpleasant role as a defender in three subsequent lawsuits alleging conflict of interest and violations of state ethics law.
Smith stated, at the 40:40 mark of the meeting:
Mr Mayor, I’m going to recuse myself from this discussion. Attorney Daniel Plyler is here to assist Council. I’ve filed my potential conflict of interest statement with the city clerk. Thank you sir.
The ordinance reading then proceeded, with City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh describing the repeal ordinance (2) to the four council members in attendance—three members being absent. After Presiding Officer and Mayor Rick Osbon opened the floor to public comment, three people took the opportunity to comment. Unlike on May 9th, no citizens affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce took the podium.
Aiken resident Debbie Traves Brown presented the language in the Do It Right! Alliance’s ongoing petition (3) drive as a stronger alternative to the proposed repeal language. Under Section 5-17-10 of South Carolina law, fifteen percent of registered voters or more in any municipality are allowed to “propose any ordinance” to their local government.(4) Brown read from a prepared statement that was submitted for the record:
Do It Right! Alliance supporters are here to advocate amending the Newberry Street repeal ordinance by substituting the language from the petition that has been signed by more than 2,600 registered voters in the City of Aiken:
AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE CLOSING OF ANY PART OF NEWBERRY STREET AND TO PROHIBIT ANY INTRUSION IN NEWBERRY STREET PARKWAYS. Explanation: Newberry Street and its parkways are an integral part of the historic Aiken street grid system and should not be closed or altered for any reason, but especially not to benefit a private developer. This ordinance will also repeal the proposed transfer of a portion of Newberry Street to a private developer.
Seven minutes later, after comments by two other speakers (5), Council voted 4-0, without any discussion, to approve the repeal. Ms. Brown then asked from the audience, “What about the amendment?”
Mayor Osbon replied:
We have a second reading also. I think there will be a discussion. I mean it would be something that would be appropriate to consider before the second one. I mean to work on a substantial change, I don’t think it would be too uncommon to say we would look at that and consider it and have a conversation before second reading. I mean I appreciate the work, obviously I think we all do, but that is the first time I’ve seen it.
The Mayor may have misspoke, but the idea that the petition is new is incredulous, as the Do It Right! Alliance petition drive is now in its fifth month and it has garnered substantial publicity. The indifference of City Council to citizen input mirrored that of March 28th, when Council deflected or otherwise ignored an hour of public concerns and requests to reject privatization of Newberry Street.
How significant is it that 2600+ signatures of registered voters were collected during the heat of a typical slow-news South Carolina summer? For perspective, during the 2019 municipal election:
Councilwoman Kay Brohl was elected with 568 votes, out of 899 votes cast.
Councilwoman Gail Diggs was reelected with 390 votes, out of 458 votes cast.
Mayor Rick Osbon won an uncontested reelection with 1784 out of 1909 votes cast—-125 were write-in votes.
During the 2017 municipal election:
Councilman Ed Woltz was first elected with 434 votes, out of 630 votes cast.
Councilwoman Andrea Gregory—who described the Do It Right! Alliance movement to the Aiken Standard as “a very small group of people”—was first elected with 156 votes during an uncontested general election; after winning the primary election with 222 votes, out of 392 cast.
The last significant turnout for a city election was in 2015, when RIck Osbon won his first race for Mayor, defeating Lessie B. Price by a 65 percent (4,840 votes) to 35 percent (2,624 votes) margin.
The turnout among registered voters in 2019 was just over nine percent, and in 2017 it was just below nine percent. In 2022, more than eleven percent of registered voters within the City of Aiken have signed a petition demanding four new ordinances be passed. Although spread out over several months, the petition represents the the largest engagement by Aiken voters since 2019.
A Look Back at the Blight Fright
The absence of discussion by Council following public comment could be due to advice from Attorney Daniel Plyler during the prior closed-door executive session held to discuss Project Pascalis legal issues. But it still stood in marked contrast to the lengthy commentaries from individual council members, on both March 28th and May 9th, portraying downtown Aiken as dilapidated, blighted, in decline, and in need of a $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment facelift.
On March 28th, Councilwoman Andrea Gregory (above) claimed that “many citizens in Aiken that have called me that are big preservationists supporting this project , because the woven aspect of the downtown grid is dilapidated.”
On March 28th, Councilwoman Gail Diggs (above) stated “I don’t want downtown in that area to look like an eyesore anymore. I work for a health center and one of my responsibilities is to take potential doctors from all over the country around to look at our city. Each time I ride downtown they ask what is that and how long it has been emptied…what are our plans and what are we going to do about it, why don’t we get rid of it. I hear that all the time.”
On May 9th, Councilwoman Kay Brohl (above) told a tale about how downtown Aiken in the 1980’s was so empty “you could shoot a cannonball and not hit a single car and there was no worry about parking there was parking everywhere,” assertions challenged in Rumors of Aiken’s Early Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated.
Although stating that he supported the project, Councilman Ed Woltz (above) was the only member who did not tell a story of blight, and the sole dissenting vote against privatization:
“ The majority of people I’ve spoken to say we’re not totally against the project we’re totally against the size the scope of it and and we’re not offering an alternative to it. Correct me if I’m wrong but once we approve this the master development agreement has to be worked out between the economic development commission and the builders it does not come back to council for anything we don’t have the final word in that. I think it’s something this big, it’s our obligation to the citizens of Aiken that we take a look at this before we give away the street.”
Not a single councilmember, including Ed Woltz, spoke about the nine businesses that would be forced to close or relocate before demolition began, such as Newberry Hall, Warneke Cleaners, Taj Restaurant and the three businesses seen below in the historic Berkman Building.
The second reading of the Newberry Street repeal ordinance is scheduled for Monday, November 14th. City Council has three weeks to address whether the final repeal ordinance will only remove RPM from the books, for now, or will provide more certainty to existing businesses and citizens concerned with the future of downtown Aiken.
Demolition of the Berkman Building was approved on March 1, 2022, but the approval was voided when RPM terminated its contract.
________________
(1) RPM stands for Raines Company, Lat Purser Company, and Ray Massey. The consortium was founded in October 2021 for the purpose of pursuing a public-private partnership with the City of Aiken’s Municipal Development Commission. RPM signed a Purchase and Sale Agreement and a Cost Sharing Agreement with the AMDC in December, 2022. Both documents remained sealed, as the AMDC continues to claim FOIA exemptions as still legally valid, and refuses to release any information unless ordered to do so by the courts.
(2) The Newberry Street Repeal Ordinance:
(3) The Petition reads:
We the undersigned registered voters of the City of Aiken oppose a project of the City of Aiken and the Aiken Municipal Development Commission entitled Project Pascalis because it threatens the historic character of our beautiful Aiken and our quality of life. Pursuant to Section 5-17-10 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, we propose the following ordinances to the Aiken City Council:
1. AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE CLOSING OF ANY PART OF NEWBERRY STREET AND TO PROHIBIT ANY INTRUSION IN NEWBERRY STREET PARKWAYS. Explanation: Newberry Street and its parkways are an integral part of the historic Aiken street grid system and should not be closed or altered for any reason but especially not to benefit a private developer. This ordinance will also repeal the proposed transfer of a portion of Newberry Street to a private developer.
2. AN ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THE CITY OF AIKEN AND ITS COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS TO FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY’S OLD AIKEN MASTER PLANAND THE OLD AIKEN DESIGN GUIDELINES. Explanation: The City adopted the Old Aiken Master Plan and the Old Aiken Guidelines which limit building heights in the Overlay District to three stories and protect the historic character of Downtown Aiken. The City and its Boards and Commissions must be required to follow its own rules.
3. AN ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THE CITY OF AIKEN TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO GRANT LANDMARK STATUS TO THE JOHNSON PHARMACY, THE HOTEL AIKEN, and the HISTORIC 19th CENTURY ORIGINAL STREET GRID OF THE CITY. Explanation: These buildings and the original Aiken street grid are very significant to the history of Aiken and should receive the highest protection of the City’s historic preservation ordinances.
4. AN ORDINANCE TO ABOLISH THE AIKEN MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (AMDC) AND TRANSFER ITS REAL PROPERTY AND ANY OTHER ASSETS TO THE CITY OF AIKEN: Explanation: The plans proposed by the AMDC have been contrary to the rules and ordinances of the City of Aiken and to the best interests of the citizens. Decisions about the future development of our City should be made by City Council members accountable to the public rather than unelected bureaucrats.
(4) SECTION 5-17-10. Electors of municipality permitted to propose ordinances.
“The electors of a municipality may propose any ordinance, except an ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the levy of taxes. Any initiated ordinance may be submitted to the council by a petition signed by qualified electors of the municipality equal in number to at least fifteen percent of the registered voters at the last regular municipal election and certified by the municipal election commission as being in accordance with the provisions of this section.”
(5) Comments by Donald Moniak, from the following statement:
The ordinance states the project was terminated. But this is contradicted by other statements. Stuart Bedenbaugh last week wrote in an affidavit the plan is “on hold.” Tim O’Briant has said the “process is ongoing.”
When describing the project last week during a court hearing, attorney Clark McCants described it as having “ several arms to what the city is doing.” And Newberry St is one of those arms. That has been one problem with the project—-too many arms. It has been segmented into two many parts, too many jurisdictions. It had no cohesion.
Newberry Street privatization was first proposed in early 2021 in secret, but not publicly disclosed for a year. That is stealthy, and stealth has been another problem with the project.
There are other stealthy arms of this project that should also be addressed, and the project should stop being treated in pieces.
First, the Redevelopment Plan that was adopted by this council via a resolution on August 12, 2020 needs to be formally cancelled. The AMDC motion on 9/29 only proposed to cancel it; and the commission does not have the authority to go any further.
Furthermore, this plan was never adopted in accordance with SC Community Development Law. There was no Public Hearing by the AMDC, as required by law; and City Council did not hold a formal reading such as this one that required public notice. As such, the Redevelopment Plan was forwarded for approval illegally, and adopted without proper notification it was even under consideration.
Second, the AECOM PLan. This plan was approved on March 22, 2021 under the false premise that it qualified as a redevelopment plan. It was not. This council approved it in spite of not even having the full report. It also appears that nobody read it. How about a show of hands: How many of you read the passage stating the equestrian community is “insular?”
The bond issuance of August 2020 needs to be addressed. Why is it that this was advertised as involving property in the wider “Parkway District” when there was full knowledge of which properties were involved?
Keith Wood has complained about being deceived by unnamed City Staff, but this bond passage might have been the most deceptive episode in Aiken City Council history. Mr. Wood wrote a memorandum that did not define or name the seven properties under assignment to the Chamber of Commerce but under control of the AMDC. He used “The Parkway District” too.
But it was well known at the time which properties were involved because the Chamber of Commerce had taken assignment of those properties from WTC Investments in May of 2021 and the AMDC described it to prospective developers as being under their its control.
So that’s just a few aspects of this they’re all conducted in stealth that need to be addressed. You need to not address one arm of this project, you need to address the whole body of the project. YOu know the whole thing should just be canceled. You should step back, abolish the AMDC, start all over again. Put the properties they own in some kind of a trust that’s owned by the city or the Aiken public facilities Corporation. Put it on the market but offer the properties that have existing businesses, offer those to the people who own those businesses first and then see what happens from there
You’ve tried two years of government intervention so maybe you got to go back to try and free market thank you all right thank you.
Comments of Kelly Cornelius, from You Tube Transcript.
My name is Kelly Cornelius. First of all thank you. This is what I asked for about 5 months ago after you voted to give away Newberry Street. I put in a formal appeal, as I’m sure you’re aware of. It was heard last Wednesday. The judge did not rule on it while we were there Wednesday. The attorney for the city said that it was the wrong jurisdiction.
But within 24 hours — less than 24 hours — you put this on the agenda to be heard tonight. So I cannot even get a shirt dry cleaned that fast, so I’m very happy that it’s up to be repealed this evening. … But in the bigger picture, it’s a sad day when we have to go to those lengths to get a city street back. So it’s the first step and, again, I support it.
I also support the stronger language that Debbie Brown mentioned. That sounds like that would protect it even further, and I think the next step after giving back Newberry Street is to indeed abolish the AMDC. Thank you.
At the twenty-eight minute mark of Monday night’s Aiken City Council meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh announced:
“In talking with the PRT (Parks, Recreation and Tourism) director the daily fees for children or individuals eighteen and under starting November 1st will be removed.”
The only caveat added to this statement was the necessity of a liability waiver form on file and signed by a parent and guardian.
The announcement was made during the first portion of “public comments on nonagenda items,” a new fixture in Aiken City Council meetings first implemented on September 12, 2022. Mr. Bedenbaugh related the fee waiver decision following questions by Aiken resident and city parks advocate Laura Lance regarding recreation fee policies for children and the city’s “Fun Funds” program:
“In part of tonight’s agenda (packet) there was an answer given to concerns and complaints about the two dollar fee for basketball for kids to go and use the facilities. The response in ‘Issues and Updates” reads ‘as has been the case since 1995 Fun Funds have been available for all eligible youth which waives the fees.’
“I don’t think that’s correct. If I am not mistaken Fun Funds are intendedfor classes….summer camp or a basketball team, then they might waive their fifty dollar fee. But I don’t think the Fun Funds are intended for one or two dollar fees that kids are being charged just to go to these facilities. To apply for those funds requires a twenty dollar registration fee….Something is not matching up.”
The announcement that daily fees for children were being eliminated was met with applause and some relief—less than two months had passed since Aiken resident Laverne Justice had first voiced objections before Council to the $2 per day policy.
Status of Adult and Annual Recreation Fees
However, at least two questions regarding the city’s recreation fees linger.
1. What is the status of fee increases implemented on April 1, 2022, but in apparent violation of city procedures?
As reported in “Taking $2 From a Child to Play a Game,” fee changes must be approved by City Council. Section 2-261 of the City of Aiken’s Municipal Code states:
“All fees, rentals, admissions and other charges made to the public for the use of city recreational facilities shall be recommended by the director of parks and recreation, reviewed by the city manager and approved by the city council.”
Fee increases were implemented in April based on recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department to the Recreation Commission. Although it has no authority to change fees, the Recreation Commission voted to do so.
According to the document “Fee Proposal Changes” presented to the Recreation Commission on February 1, 2022–but never made public (1)—the maximum original annual fee was $125. At the urging PRT Director Jessica Campbell, the Recreation Commission voted to raise membership fees to as much as $400 for a family of four. According to the most recent edition of “The Park Bench,” these annual “Wellness Membership” fees remain in place.
From: “Fee Proposal Changes,” Feburary 1, 2021 Presentation to City of Aiken Recreation Commission. From: “Fee Proposal Changes,” Feburary 1, 2021 Presentation to City of Aiken Recreation Commission.
2. Even though the change in youth fees is welcome, the question remains: who is in charge of finalizing recreation fees? At the August 16, 2022 Recreation Commission meeting, at least one commissioner acknowledged it was not in their purview to change rates:
“Commissioner Wallace reminded members that they are expected to make recommendations to City Council, but are not in a position to approve or disapprove of changes.”
Footnotes
(1) The original Parks, Recreation and Tourism (PRT) “Fee Proposal Changes” document was presented to the Recreation Commission during its special meeting on February 1, 2022; a meeting for which there was no proper public notice. No record of that meeting was publicly available until mid September.
The “Fee Proposal Changes” were not included in the Feburary 28, 2022, “Issues and Update” memorandum in City Council’s Meeting Agenda Packet that served as notification to City Council of fee changes. The document was not publicly available until a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request compelled the city to post it. It is now buried in the city’s Laserfiche document repository at
FOIA Request #254-2022, filed on September 20, 2022, requested:
“1. A copy of the “ draft copy of the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (PRT) Fee Change Proposal” provided at the February 1, 2022 Recreation Commission meeting. Meeting minutes for that meeting indicate this document was provided. This document was requested on September 16, 2022 in a letter to PRT Director Jessica Campbell and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. The document should be readily accessible. 2. A copy of the final PRT Master Plan Report and Needs Assessment by Clemson University professor Bob Brookover. Please advise if there is no final copy and whether the draft that was provided in City Council’s January 10, 2022 Workshop agenda packet is the current version. 3. A copy of the online survey cited in the Master Plan Report. 4. A copy of all park usage data provided to Professor Brookover and his research associates during preparation of the report.”
The “Fee Change Proposal” and a clean copy of the PRT Master Plan were provided on October 4, 2022. They are currently in the city’s Lasefiche ecodoc repository.
_______________
City Solicitor Laura Jordan’s response to #3 and #4 of the request was as follows:
“For Item No. 3, the requested item is an online survey. The survey is no longer active online and the City is not in possession of a copy of the survey.For Item No. 4, Professor Brookover was provided the link to the Monthly Reports, which are available at the City of Aiken’s Document Repository (LaserFiche). Once the Laser Fiche page has been accessed, click on the “Browse” link in the upper right hand corner. From there, click on the “Parks and Recreation” Folder and then then “Monthly Reports” Folder.’”
The Shifting Status of Project Pascalis: per The Defendants
by Don Moniak
October 24, 2022
Defendants in three lawsuits regarding Project Pascalis have offered multiple versions of the current project status in the past month, suggesting the project is in another transition phase between developers. Since September 14, 2022, the following statements have been made, in their order:
“Developer is forced to hereby exercise its rights to terminate the Agreement,” but “would like to continue to participate in the ongoing development of this project.” (Attorney James Myrick for RPM)
“Amend that motion now to say that we declare the existing contract null and void and we propose to cancel the redevelopment plan.” (AMDC)
“The AMDC is terminating all planning work with the current developer and hopefully plans to restart the planning process.” (Keith Wood)
“This process is still ongoing.” (Tim O’Briant)
“This redevelopment plan is currently on hold.” (Stuart Bedenbaugh)
“Because the Developer also purported to cancel the project.” (Attorneys for Chris Verenes)
“Project Pascalis has been terminated“ (Proposed Aiken City Council Ordinance).
Since May 9, 2022 three lawsuits have been filed against the City of Aiken for all or parts of Project Pascalis. (1) The city is being represented in the first two lawsuits by the local firm of Nance and McCants. At the present time, there are fourteen lawyers from eight different firms (2) representing twenty-eight different defendants in the more expansive Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit filed on July 5, 2022. WIth so many lawyers defending so many people and organizations, it should come as no surprise that the defendants are sending mixed messages regarding the status of Project Pascalis and seven properties owned by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) .
On October 19, 2022, attorneys for Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) Vice Chairman Chris Verenes joined the Blake et al proceedings and filed a Motion to Dismiss Mr. Verenes as an individual and only hold the commission as the defendant. (City of Aiken counsel Daniel Plyler argued the same for City Council, that the city should be the defendant, not the individual council members.)
Notable in the Verenes filing is an argument that the case is now moot because:
“At its last meeting, the Commission passed a resolution to (a) stop the redevelopment project commonly known as Project Pascalis, (b) declare the purported existing contract with Defendant RPM Development Partners, LLC dated December 3, 2021, null and void, and (c) cancel the Redevelopment Plan One for Downtown Aiken, dated July 10, 2020. (See Exhibit 2, Commission Minutes (September 29, 2022).”
The first problem with this statement is two-fold. First, the September 29th meeting minutes cited are an unapproved draft, since the commission has not met since the 29th to approve its minutes. Second, the draft minutes are inaccurate, even misidentifying who made and who seconded the motion. An actual transcript of the meeting from a video taken by a watchful citizen, reads:
Keith Wood:There is a continued motion uh that was uh continued from the last meeting that has been discussed. Uh, that motion says that we will stop project pascalis and declare the purported existing contract null and void with RPM and we propose to either amend or cancel the redevelopment plan.”
Is there a motion to move?
Commissioner Philip Merry: Yes sir Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend further amend that motion um to now say that we declare the existing contract null and void and we propose to cancel the redevelopment plan.
Commissioner Douglas Slaughter: Second.
In the final, amended motion, the word “purported” was removed; the cancellation of the unnamed redevelopment plan was “proposed” and not final; and because the final oral motion not repeated for clarity and is not in writing, it is unclear whether the motion actually contains the phrase “Stop Project Pascalis.”
The second problem with the Verenes motion is it adds to the inconsistency of other statements put forth by various defendants; beginning with the developer’s termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the seven AMDC-owned Project Pascalis properties.
The Developers Position
On September 14, 2022, one day before the deadline to recoup its earnest money, RPM Development Partner attorney James Myrick wrote in a letter to the AMDC:
“Developer is forced to hereby exercise its rights to terminate the Agreement and to require reimbursement of Developer’s costs and expenses by the Commission.”
But in his final paragraph, Myrick left open the possibility of an RPM return:
“We have appreciated the opportunity to work with the Commission and the City of Aiken and would like to continue to participate in the ongoing development of this project. We believe that our experience and expertise can be valuable to the Aiken community, and we look forward to responding to any new revised project proposal from the Commission when the time comes and hopefully working with you to advance the revised project.”
The developer’s attorneys further used this letter of termination to argue in a September 30th Motion to Dismiss RPM and Raines that “Defendant RPM Development Partners, LLC terminated its contract with the City of Aiken relating to Project Pascalis.”
The Chairman’s Position
On September 29th, AMDC Chair Keith Wood wrote in an individual statement that “the AMDC voted to stop Project Pascalis, declare the existing contract with the developer null and void, and cancelled the Redevelopment Plan,” a plan that is not the commission’s to cancel. (3) The statement was written before the amended motion was approved.
Wood also added the AMDC “hopefully plans to restart the procurement process.”
Portion of statement made by AMDC Chair Keith Wood on 9/29. “Cancel” written by Keith Wood.
The Economic Development Director’s Position
Although Wood declared fealty to South Carolina’s Community Development Law (SC 31 Chapter 10), that commitment quickly waivered into noncompliance in terms of Part 160(a) of the law: “The books and records of a commission are at all times open and subject to inspection by the public.”
On October 6, inspections of all AMDC books and records were denied by Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant barring a Judge’s order. O’Briant confirmed (4) the following position pertaining to procurement information and cancelled Purchase and Sale Agreement with RPM Development Partners, LLC:
“The AMDC will not release any information pertaining to any agreements between the AMDC and RPM Development Partners until a deed is executed–even though there is no existing contracts and no proposed sale. The position of the city is that this process is ongoing and therefore FOIA exemptions #5 and #9 still apply. Even though there is no redevelopment plan, solicitations may still occur and release of information would provide competitive information to bidders.”
The City Manager’s Position
In an October 13, 2022 Addidavit submitted to the Second Judicial Circuit of South Carolina in response to the Johnson and Cornelius lawsuits—but lacking any associated motion—City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh stated the redevelopment plan (still unnamed) is “on hold” and that only “key portions” of the the project were rescinded.
From: 10/13/2022 Stuart Bedenbaugh Affidavit
Aiken City Council’s Position
On Monday, October 24th Aiken City Council will hold the first reading of an ordinance repealing the Newberry Street privatization ordinance passed on May 9, 2022 which describes Project Pascalis as “terminated.”
No clarification has been forthcoming from city officials who seem more eager to escape from expensive, damaging, and effective litigation than to put forth a unified and consistent message, and also comply with anti-corruption laws governing access to records, conflicts of interest, and fair, competitive procurement of services.
Instead, the developer has indicated a strong willingness to return; the AMDC chair has stated a preference to move forward with another procurement process; the city’s Economic Development Director claimed the process is ongoing; the City Manager wrote the plan is on hold; City Council has only acknowledged that the contract, and not the project, is terminated; and now the AMDC Co-Chair has separate legal counsel from that being provided by the AMDC.
________________
Footnotes
(1) Three lawsuits have been filed:
a. On May 9, 2022 Kelly Cornelius filed a civil appeal complaint against Aiken City Council in the Court of Common Pleas alleging public notification violations and state ethics law violations by City Attorney Gary Smith for failing to recuse himself during the March 28, 2022 Aiken City Council hearing for an ordinance to privatize a portion of Newberry Street.
In response, City of Aiken attorneys from the law firm of Nance and McCant’s filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the suit was filed in the wrong jurisdiction. No denials of conflict of interest allegations were made.
b. On May 9, 2022, John “Drew” Johnson filed a civil appeal complaint against Aiken City Council, Mayor Rick Osbon, City Attorney Gary Smith, and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, in the Court of Common Pleas. Johnson also alleged a conflict of interest involving City Attorney Gary Smith for failing to recuse himself during the March 28, 2022 Aiken City Council hearing regarding the partial privatization of Newberry Street as an integral part of Project Pascalis.
The same response from the same legal firm as Cornelius vs Aiken City Council was made. Again, City of Aiken attorneys did not dispute the allegation, and sought to have the case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
c. On July 5, 2022. David W. Blake, Luis E. Rinaldini, Dudley Richard Dewar, Jenne Stoker, Beatrice B. McGhee, Gail King, Historic Aiken Foundation, Inc., Green Boundary Foundation, and the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation, filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas, Second Judicial Circuit of South Carolina, against the City of Aiken. The lawsuit named twenty-eight defendants ranging from Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon to RPM Developers,LLC.
(2) The following firms and attorneys are representing various city officials and bodies in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, in order of appearance
Firm; and Location
Atttorney
Clients
Nance and McCants; Aiken
Clark McCants III, Clark McCants IV
Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith
Smith-Robinson, Columbia
Daniel Plyler, Rachel Lee
City of Aiken, Mayor Rick Osbon, and City Council members
Lindemann and Davis; Columbia
Andrew Lindemann
Design Review Board (DRB) and seven DRB members
James Holley; Landrum
James Holly
DRB and members
David Morrison
David Morrison
AMDC and commissioners
Davidson, Wren, and Demasters; Columbia.
Michael Wren
Tim O’Briant
Womble Bond and Dickinson; Charleston
Charles J. Baker, Molly McDermid, James Myrick
RPM Development Partners, LLC; and Raines Company
Nelson Mullins of Columbia
Dwight Drake, Matt Abee, and Madison Guyton
Chris Verenes, in his capacity as Vice Chairman and a member of the AMDC
Additional court filings submitted to date include the following:
(3) After the motion was passed, Chairman Wood was asked which redevelopment plan was referred to in the motion to cancel. The reply was “Redevelopment Plan One” a plan that itself is alleged to be illegal in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit.
Unlike Project Pascalis, “Redevelopment Plan One” does not identify any properties for demolition and proposes only to renovate Hotel Aiken; does not privatize a portion of Newberry Street; and does not require relocating existing businesses.
The state’s Community Development Law also requires redevelopment plans to undergo a public hearing by the commission and subsequent approval by the commission’s governing body—in this case Aiken City Council. The AMDC failed to hold a public hearing, and Aiken City Council adopted Redevelopment Plan One via a resolution and not through a publicly noticed ordinance reading.
Since Redevelopment Plan One was not approved in compliance with SC Community Development Law, and Aiken City Council only needs to undergo the formality of rescinding its resolution to approve the noncompliant document.
(4) The entire email from Tim O’Briant confirming various city positions:
