Category Archives: Archives

Development Issues, Downtown Aiken, Editorials, May 2025

Parsing the RH and Winter Colony Development Group Branding Efforts

5 Comments

by Don Moniak

May 18, 2025

The leadup to this moment in the saga of the downtown Aiken’s Pascalis Properties is summarized in Local Politics and Planning in 2025. As reported there, in November 2024 Colliers representative Tommy Tapp informed Aiken City Council that, in reference to potential bidders for the property:

“Another concern, is their bid going to be kept secret? They don’t want it shopped around in the press or made public because one of the criteria is ingenuity and creativity and what they can do with the project.”


Six months later, one of the six bidders, known as the Winter Colony Development Group, has taken the odd and unusual step of urging Aiken citizens to lobby “Aiken City Hall” on their behalf; in large part by shopping their creative ideas on Facebook.

The lobbying and public relations effort involves two videos.

First, there is the video titled Winter Colony Development Group’s Proposal for the City, released this weekend and already enjoying 1,000+ views. (It is the same video as the one titled Final 2 Winter Colony Development Group that can be found on the group’s You Tube Channel 256. That video was provided to Colliers and the City of Aiken four months ago—but not publicized. It has 173 views.)

The proposal video presents the group’s vision for the Pascalis properties: “reimagining” the Hotel Aiken into fourteen luxury condominiums, two restaurants on the ground floor, thirteen townhouses replacing the motel on Bee Lane, a 56-spot parking garage behind the Warneke Cleaners property (with no indication of the future of that historic business), and an assortment of retail space along Richland and Laurens.

In the comment section of the latest popular release, the group wrote:

“City Hall is about to vote to turn the historic Aiken Hotel into a budget hotel without enough parking. If you prefer the alternative of Downtown Family Living with Shopping, Dining and Live Outdoor Entertainment, call Aiken City Hall at 803 642 7600 and demand the Winter Colony Proposal be chosen. Thank you for your support and tell your friends!”

The latest version also urges citizens to link to a music video titled Aiken Downtown Family Living; in which the group further disparages an undisclosed competitor’s proposal. The video features a folksy country song with the refrain “if it speaks to what you feel, call the City. Let’s make it real.”

The song is an advertising gimmick concocted by one of the group’s partners. That partner is the Ransom Company, whose website features a dozen product “jingles” by branding expert Tim Ransom. The Aiken Community Downtown Family Living video “jingle” is described on the site as a “Social Media PSA.”

Now compare the folksy Aiken Community Downtown Family Living PSA to a third related Channel 256 video, called RH Winter Colony; which was produced six months ago and has 27 views. RH Winter Colony is a sales pitch for potential investors, and the pitch is the history of Aiken and American elites as embodied by the Aiken Winter Colony. The “RH” brand is described as capturing the “American Recreational Spirit” of both the Winter Colony era and today.

Do watch both videos, RH Winter Colony and Aiken Downtown Family Living, back to back for a sales pitch dichotomy lesson. The former pitches elitism, exclusivity, 5th avenue, Rodeo Drive, luxury, and the planned, stylistic poses of unsmiling recreationists; a vision without children, and without family.

The latter pitches down to earth folksiness, images of Aiken’s common, humble, and popular places; smiles and spontaneity among both local children and adults. It has family.

RH Winter Colony seeks to lure financial investors; Aiken Downtown Family Living seeks investments of public opinion.

The two videos are the two faces of the Winter Colony group’s brands, both presented by the creators of the “iconic” brands for Fruit of the Loom/Star Wars boys underwear, Saranac Lake beer, Grizzly smokeless tobacco, and Lotrimin fungal cream; among others.

Why?

Why did Winter Colony Group choose to participate in a secret selection process up until the moment it appeared the process was leading to the selection of another bidder? Given the fact that one requirement in Request for Offers was to divulge the bidders’ financial sources, would Winter Colony publicly disclose that information–along with its proposed purchase price, portfolio, and more complete concept plans?

It could be that the Winter Colony Group is exactly what Aiken wants and needs. The group has arguably performed a service by reminding citizens that a competition is ongoing. But the manner in which it has pursued its goals and attempted to manipulate public opinion leaves more questions than answers.

The entire spectacle, and all the intrigue, might be resolved if other bidders were to follow suit and trot out summaries of their offers, whether it be promotional videos or a power point program. City Council could also release a summary of all six offers without divulging names. Some, if not all, of the secrecy could be lifted.

But at this point, one competitor’s proposal has merely been branded as a “budget hotel without enough parking” by a branding expert who has only provided a few minutes of details about its own plans. The owners of the Pascalis properties, the citizens of Aiken, deserve more than more stumbling by many of the same parties—City Council and the City Manager—who helped bring Project Pascalis to the table more than three years ago.

Above: Images from RH Winter Colony video.

*Footnote:

*Submission requirement in the Colliers’ November 2024 Request for Offers bidder’s packet. (Obtained via a Freedom of Information Act Request.)

Screenshot
April 2025, In the Demolition Zone, Project Pascalis 2022

The City of Aiken: Not Subject to FOIA Laws?

14 Comments

Is the City of Aiken ignoring local and state laws regarding an unnamed committee formed to advise the City in its sale of the ill-begotten Project Pascalis properties?

by Kelly Cornelius

April 23, 2025

The Unnamed Committee

One would think that City of Aiken administration would change their ways after the lessons learned from the failed Project Pascalis, which left in its wake a train wreck of debris including:

  • A decommissioned Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC)
  • A defunct Economic Development Department
  • An economic development director fired or resigned depending on whom you ask
  • An incumbent Mayor shown the door by voters
  • A stain on the community and a loss of public trust over the secrecy that continues to define the history of Project Pascalis.

However, recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) results reveal what appears to be an ongoing disregard for local municipal code and state FOIA laws in the business of the recently-formed, unnamed committee to advise the City in its disbursements of the ill-begotten Pascalis properties. 

Why Did Project Pascalis Fail? A Brief Recap

Project Pascalis was the public purchase of seven properties, including historic properties, in the heart of downtown by the city-derived Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC). The purchase was funded by a $9.6M Bond procured by the city under the guise of “blight” and was made without so much as even an appraisal for the properties, which were worth roughly half of what the City paid. In a series of secret meetings, the City hatched a plan to demolish these seven properties to make way for the usual fare of a convention center, new hotel and parking garage. 

When Aiken citizens finally learned of the plot in March 2022, they fought back with huge turnouts in City Council meetings, a petition drive, a sign campaign, three lawsuits, numerous FOIA requests, and a series of citizen-researched articles published to inform the public about the project. Revealed in this research was the appearance of ethics, FOIA and redevelopment law violations. Also uncovered by citizens was that the winning developer was publicly announced ten days before the actual Request for Proposals was published. That winning developer also just happened to be led by the City Attorney’s law partner.

The project officially derailed on September 29th, 2022 but one of the three lawsuits filed against the city is still ongoing, the biggest issue being the release of information by former AMDC officials. A judge recently ruled that the city had to produce the information to the plaintiffs albeit with a clawback provision.

For more on this history, read;

The Pascalis Attorneys
Keeping Up Appearances
The City of Aiken’s Information Games

History Repeating

Despite the lessons of Pascalis, the secrecy and disregard for local and state laws appear to persist. Today, the story revolves around the sale of the Pascalis properties and the committee formed to advise the City on this sale. In March of 2024, the City Council chose Colliers International to market the properties and by January of 2025, City Manager Bedenbaugh was quoted in the local paper describing some of the members of an eight-person group formed to make a recommendation to the city council over the fate of the public purchase. When the City was asked, via FOIA request, for a complete list of the names in the group and a record of how it was formed, the City responded: 

“There are no records documenting the formation of this group. The group/committee members are: City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Assistant City Manager Mary Tilton, Mayor Teddy Milner, Mayor Pro Tempore Ed Girardeau, Tommy Tapp, Colliers Representative, Alia Bostaji, Colliers Representative, Barbara Price, Architect with McMillan Pazdan Smith, Mark Chostner, Project Manager .”

The city’s municipal code has regulations regarding the formation of and minutes kept by committees, yet it appears these were not adhered to when it comes to this noname advisory committee. 

  • Sec. 2-38. – Powers with respect to offices, boards, commission, etc.(a)The council, by ordinance, may create, change and abolish offices, departments, boards, agencies and commissions.(b)The council may appoint and remove all members of the municipal boards, agencies and commissions established by the council, state law or constitution, except as otherwise provided by state law. Such boards and commissions shall serve as advisory bodies to the council and shall not exercise administrative responsibility, except as may be otherwise provided by law. Terms of the board, agency or commission members shall be as provided by ordinance, state law or constitution.(Code 1980, § 2-21)
  • Sec. 2–69. – Hearings by special committees. The city council may appoint a special committee to assist in or hold a public hearing for the council at any time upon any matter pending before it. Minutes or reports of hearings held by special committees shall be filed with the city clerk as public records.(Code 1980, § 2-39)

Additionally, the State of South Carolina state Freedom of Information Act laws when it comes to public bodies and public meetings: 

SECTION 30-4-20.Definitions.
(a) “Public body” means any department of the State, a majority of directors or their representatives of departments within the executive branch of state government as outlined in Section 1-30-10, any state board, commission, agency, and authority, any public or governmental body or political subdivision of the State, including counties, municipalities, townships, school districts, and special purpose districts, or any organization, corporation, or agency supported in whole or in part by public funds or expending public funds, including committees, subcommittees, advisory committees, and the like of any such body by whatever name known,

Key Points and Questions on the Committee
  • As half of the eight-member committee are paid public employees or paid elected officials, the group appears to be funded, in part, by public funds which appears to make this committee a “Public Body”. 
  • According to information obtained via FOIA on the City’s contract with Colliers (the firm selected to market the properties) the firm will be paid in commission for their services upon the sale of the properties.
  • Committee member Mark Chostner, listed as ‘Project Manager” in the group was also involved with Project Pascalis and paid for his services. Are taxpayers paying for his services on this committee, or is he working on a volunteer basis? A FOIA request has been submitted for any invoices on this project. 4/24/25 Update: The City of Aiken has determined that there are no invoices from the period of April 2024 to the current date from Capstone Services for services regarding the sale of the Pascalis properties.
  • Committee member Barbara Price, architect with McMillian Pazdan Smith, (the same firm involved with the City’s “Mixed Use Project”) could also be paid for her services. A FOIA request was made for any invoices submitted regarding this project and The City of Aiken has determined that there are no invoices for services from McMillan Pazdan Smith from the time period of April 2024 to the present. 

If the unnamed advisory committee is deemed a public body according to Section 30-4-20 then it would also appear to be subject to FOIA laws according to Section 30-4-90 (those laws can be viewed in entirety here). According to South Carolina FOIA law: 

SECTION 30-4-90.Minutes of meetings of public bodies.
(a) All public bodies shall keep written minutes of all of their public meetings. Such minutes shall include but need not be limited to:
(1) The date, time and place of the meeting.
(2) The members of the public body recorded as either present or absent.
(3) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided and, at the request of any member, a record, by an individual member, of any votes taken.
(4) Any other information that any member of the public body requests be included or reflected in the minutes.
(b) The minutes shall be public records and shall be available within a reasonable time after the meeting except where such disclosures would be inconsistent with Section 30-4-70 of this chapter.

No Public Notice, No Agendas, No Meeting Minutes

When the City was asked, via FOIA request for meeting notices, meeting agendas and meeting minutes the city responded by saying:

“The meetings were not public meetings, so notice was not required and no agendas were created. Additionally, there were no minutes taken of the meetings. “

So, in addition to ignoring municipal code on committee formation, the city feels their private meetings are not subject to SC Freedom of Information Act rules on meetings or notices of meetings. 

City Solicitor Laura Jordan was asked by this writer if she could explain why the city believes this committee is not subject to local municipal code or FOIA laws but at the time of this publishing, no reply has been received.

A January 25, 2025 email to the Mayor from citizen Don Moniak also inquired about the “unnamed committee” asking if the committee intended to follow SC FOIA requirements. This email went unanswered until Mr. Moniak sent a follow-up on March 10th, wherein he also suggested the unnamed committee was operating in violation of both state FOIA laws and city municipal code. Mayor Milner responded via email on March 10th saying she would get an answer to Mr. Moniak’s concern. At the time of this publishing, no answer has been forthcoming.

Small Businesses in the Crosshairs, Citizens on the Hook, and a Public in the Dark

The City’s ongoing, high-stakes development plots have left the hard-working, small businesses housed in the Pascalis properties dangling in the crosshairs, their month-to-month fate unknown. One such business is the restaurant Taj of Aiken, a tenant in one of the Richland Avenue buildings. Restaurant owner Alok Kumar Aske went on the record at the April 14th, 2025 City Council meeting requesting the option to purchase the building or sign an extended lease — options he has actively pursued with the City each month the past year, options that have been afforded to other other Pascalis tenants but not to Taj of Aiken. 

Citizen Jacob Goss Ellis followed with a strong endorsement of Kumar and the Taj crew, calling the establishment a “pillar of the community” and “an Aiken institution,” for their extraordinary community generosity, especially in times of crisis. Councilwoman Gail Diggs spoke of his generosity as well. However, no one on Council followed-up with a discussion of Kumar’s request. 

Aiken citizens have been likewise kept in the dark regarding the fate of these publicly-owned properties, their input unsolicited and, at times, even made to feel unwelcome by those officials empowered to represent the people’s interests. As evidence of the latter, there is the comment made by City Council member Ed Girardeau, also a member of the unnamed advisory committee, who recently described the public as “idiots” to a hot mic at a recent City Council meeting.

Regarding the anticipated recommendation from this unnamed advisory committee, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh was quoted in a March 11 Aiken Standard article as saying: “The city council can accept the recommendation; reject it and pick another proposal; or reject it and all the other proposals and start the process again.” 

Might we recommend starting the process by following municipal code and state FOIA laws and asking the citizenry what they would like done with these publicly owned assets?

_________________________

April 2025, City Government, Downtown Aiken, Editorials

“An Aiken Institution” Taj Aiken – One of Downtown’s Crown Jewels Still in the Crosshairs After the Project Pascalis Failure.

5 Comments

by Kelly Cornelius

April 16, 2025

Alok Kumar Aske, owner of Taj Aiken, a tenant in one of the city-owned Pascalis properties went on the record at Monday night’s City Council meeting and asked city officials to give him the 5-year lease he has been promised.(1) Doing so was not easy for such a soft spoken and gentle soul but he explained he signed the lease they gave him in Feb of 2024 but has yet to get it back from them and he checks in with city officials once a month.

As he reached out for help those city officials sat mostly mum with the exception of Councilwoman Diggs who has witnessed this man’s generosity for herself. Aiken citizen Jacob Ellis, who has been active in preserving the history of Aiken’s downtown, spoke in glowing support of Taj calling it “An Aiken Institution” and Kumar “A pillar of this community”.

Taj Aiken is truly one of downtown Aiken’s crown jewels. The Indian cuisine restaurant sits amidst the “Pascalis Block” — the group of Parkway District properties that Aiken officials purchased in 2021. under the guise of addressing “blight”.  The $9.6M taxpayer-funded boondoggle was part of the City’s vision to demolish the very cornerstone of historic downtown and erect in its place a modern chain hotel, a parking garage and conference center. Public outrage stopped Project Pascalis, however Taj and owner Kumar have since been held in limbo, first in the crosshairs of city official’s wrecking ball — under the threat of demolition for nearly two years and now as the property is listed for sale.

In the aftermath of Pascalis there was the lab project, and when the SRNL announcement was made on January 23, 2023, Councilman Ed Woltz stated that the “the plan is to preserve the existing businesses on the block…the Taj Restaurant would remain on Richland Avenue.” That was a promise made but forgotten when the lab building was put on Newberry St.

Kumar broke his silence at Monday night’s city council meeting and asked that city officials grant him the lease he was given over a year ago and that he has signed but the city hasn’t. He also asked for the opportunity to purchase the property that houses his restaurant, an opportunity which one other Pascalis tenant has been granted.

The American Dream

Kumar Akse is the very poster child for the American Dream. Originally from India, he arrived in this country in 2009 after having to drop out of medical school, which he was attending in Russia. A family emergency required the family’s financial resources to go toward medical care of a family member, so medical school for Akse was over. It was only through great sacrifice that he was able to make the move to America.

Akse arrived in the United States in 2009 to Augusta where he worked as a waiter until 2017 when he got the opportunity to open Taj on the ground floor of the Hotel Aiken. The restaurant became an instant favorite with the Aiken community and, within months, enjoyed dozens of 5-star reviews from locals and tourists on online review sites. Going into its eighth year in 2025, the 5-star accolades for Taj Aiken only continue, with many patrons express their delight and surprise to find such an artistry of spices and authenticity of Indian cuisine right here in the heart of downtown Aiken.

This isn’t to say that path from 2017 to 2025 has been easy. Shortly after opening in the Hotel Aiken, Akse had to move his business several doors east, to its current location at 213 Richland Avenue, where he had to do many of the renovations himself before reopening the business. It took nearly a year of work before Taj could open the doors. The business is thriving, the food is fantastic, and his customer base is loyal. Akse returns that love to his community in many ways, including mentoring his staff of twelve. “This job is only temporary” he preaches to them, “in this country you can make whatever you want of yourself with hard work”. 

Akse does not does not take this country nor its opportunities for granted. He works hard and he is grateful. One encounter with this man and you see he is kind above all else. Akse believes in karma, and he believes in giving back to his community. 

Hurricane Helene

Kumar fed this community day after day free of charge in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene which left downtown and most of Aiken without power and nearly unrecognizable.

A petition online to give Kumar a key to the city has taken off since he spoke publicly with over 670 signatures at the time of this publishing. The petition page is filled with glowing comments about the man and the food.

To illustrate another example of his generosity and community spirit, Christmas Day, 2023 Taj Aiken posted a holiday greeting and an announcement on their Facebook wall: 

“Taj Aiken takes pride in acknowledging our forever supporting patrons and jolly little town. Your presence is requested by Taj Aiken on Tuesday, December 26th. We are offering free boxed lunches from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. We sigh you all a Happy Healthy and Prosperous New Year!!”

On the afternoon of December 26, and in a drizzly rain, Akse and his staff gifted the Aiken community with a generosity of good cheer and over 475 boxed lunches to people from all walks of life. 

It’s past time the City of Aiken gives back to a man who gives so much to this community. Specifically, Taj Aiken should have the same opportunity available to some of the other Pascalis businesses to negotiate a contract with the right to purchase; or to provide an extended lease.

City officials gave Newberry Hall the right to purchase their property and they have given other tenants including Vampire Penguin and Ginger Bee 5-year leases but Taj Aiken has not been given that opportunity…. yet.

The City of Aiken has held the fate of Taj Aiken for long enough. Give this small business owner a fair contract and a fair price to purchase the property that taxpayers now own. With new leadership in the Mayor’s office — a shift in leadership that was largely due to backlash from the failed Project Pascalis — the City of Aiken has an opportunity to start to restore more than just the Hotel Aiken. They can start to restore public trust by supporting an independent small business beloved by many.

Footnotes:

  1. April 14th, 2025 Aiken City Council meeting youtube. Kumar Aske’s speech begins at the 39:30 mark.

Good evening Aiken City Council.

My name is Alok Kumar Akse.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you.

I am the owner of Taj Aiken restaurant at 211 Richland Avenue West. I am here to ask that you consider granting our business a 5-year lease.

Taj Restaurant serves authentic Indian Cuisine. I employ twelve workers. We have hundreds of regular customers. We are a profitable, successful business since 2017.

We learned in November 2021 that the City was buying our property and was going to demolish our building and force us to move elsewhere. Since December of 2021 the City of Aiken has been our landlord, just like Vampire Penguin and Warneke’s.

Just like other businesses, we had no peace of mind after Project Pascalis began.

Mr Tim O’Briant offered us assistance to relocate. The assistance was not enough for us to move. We could not find another suitable space for a restaurant downtown. . Still, I signed the relocation agreement and waited to see what would happen.

But then Project Pascalis was cancelled. I thought maybe I could buy my building from the city or sign a long term lease.

Then the Savannah River Laboratory project came and the City wanted to build around us. Mr. Woltz said that Taj Aiken would stay open. Dr Majidi told me he wanted us to stay in our building.

We were very hopeful. We invested more in our business.

Then we were told the laboratory needed some of our space. Mr Tim and Mayor Osbon said the City would move us next door to the Playoffs building at the city’s expense.

But then the city decided to build the lab on Newberry Street, not next to our restaurant.

Then Vampire Penguin and Ginger Bee were given five year leases one year ago and gained some peace of mind and I became more hopeful.

I too sought a five-year lease and was told by Mr. Bedenbaugh that if I signed one like Jeannette and Brook’s then he would seek approval from you. I signed the lease in February 2024 that he provided and delivered to his office. I was told to check back.

I checked back in April, in June, July, and September last year, and then in January this year.

Now my building is part of another big project and our future is still uncertain.

We wanted the opportunity to buy our building and stay where we are, like Newberry Hall did. But if that is not possible we want a long-term lease that we were promised was possible. We want the same opportunities Aiken is giving other businesses. We are happy where we are. Our customers are happy where we are.

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak to you.

City Government, In the Courts, March 2025

Court Rules in Favor of City of Aiken in Ed Woltz Business License Tax Dispute

Leave a comment

by Don Moniak
March 31, 2025

This past Friday, March 27, 2025, the South Carolina Administrative Law Court issued a ruling in favor of the City of Aiken in the business license tax dispute between Ed Woltz, Holly Woltz, and their real estate company S & C Properties LLC. (The case did not involve Ed Woltz in his capacity as an Aiken City Council member.)

Three background stories leading up to this ruling are as follows:

Ed Woltz’s Business License Citation, which reported on the legal dispute process from a criminal citation in November 2021, to an appeal to Aiken City Council in September 2022.

A Hearing on Business License Taxes, which focused on a June 2023 administrative hearing before the City of Aiken’s designated hearing officer.

Legal Fees for the Ed Woltz “Business License Dispute” Top $80,000, which chronicled the progress of the case from July 2023 to December 2024; and documented the $80,311 in legal costs incurred to date by the City of Aiken.

The March 27, 2025 Ruling

Nineteen months after an appeal was filed with the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC) by Ed Woltz, Holly Woltz, and S & C Properties LLC (Petitioners) regarding a business license tax dispute with the City of Aiken, the ALC has finally issued a ruling in favor of the City, and ordered the Petitioners to obtain a business license for all of their real estate rental businesses and pay any back taxes (1) for the years 2017-2021.

The appeal hinged on two contentions by the Petitioners regarding the application of the business license tax Ordinance to rental properties; with the central issue being the differences between owners of a single residential rental property vs owners of multiple residential rental properties. (2)

First, they argued that the Ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous “because it fails to define the point at which rental of residential properties constitutes doing business;” and that the breakpoint of property ownership was itself arbitrary.

Secondly, they argued that the City’s “failure to treat them similarly to owners of a single residential property amounts to an (unconstitutional) equal protection violation;” that the City’s policy of allowing one tax-free rental was inconsistent with the actual Ordinance; which draws no distinction between number of rentals.

The City’s defense was that the Ordinance provides for administrative discretion by its Business License Official in the enforcement of the Ordinance. In this case, the City maintains a policy dating to the 1980’s to not mandate a business license for owners of a single residential rental property. The policy is based on the assumption that a single rental, such as an inherited property, does not constitute a business activity.

On the issue of “vagueness,” the Court simply ruled that any reasonable person can discern that a landlord owning more than ten properties, as the Petitioners do, constitutes a business.

On the issue of unequal treatment, the Court applied a more complex “rational basis test” to determine whether the distinction between single-home landlords and multiple-home landlords was rational.

The Court decided that the City’s approach is rational, and that there was no disparate, or unequal, treatment because the Petitioners fell within a different business class than single home landlords. The Court concluded that the Petitioners did not meet the burden of proof showing disparate treatment because a “rational basis review of a government classification does not look for disparate treatment vis-a-vis other classes created by the government’s distinction; rather it examines whether there is a disparate treatment within the designated class.”

More simply put, because there was no disparate treatment within the multiple-homes landlord class, there was no overall disparate treatment and therefore no constitutional violations.

Footnotes

(1) According to court documents, the Petitioners paid $13,086.56 in back taxes and penalties in September 2022, but did so under protest. The next day, an appeal was filed, as allowed by City statute, with the Aiken City Council.

It is unclear whether additional payments are due, but since the Court did state that the Petitioners did not challenge the total tax levied by the City it appears the bill is satisfied.

(2) The appeal also included arguments regarding the levying of business license taxes on properties outside of the City’s jurisdiction. Those contentions went unaddressed in the ruling.

Aiken Corporation, City Government, Development Issues, March 2025

Uncertainty at the Downtown “Mixed Use” Facility

11 Comments

Progress continues on the $20 million downtown “Mixed Use” facility, which the City of Aiken hopes the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) will eventually occupy as a “workforce development facility.” However, two years after the project was announced with great fanfare, there is still no lease agreement with SRNL’s contractor, Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA); deep federal budget cuts could further threaten the viability of any new leases for federal contractors.

Recently, SRNL/BSRA officials were dissuaded by the Department of Energy (DOE) from attending the facility groundbreaking, and were ordered by DOE to have the SRNL logo removed from project signage. Is the City of Aiken creeping towards a misappropriation of the $20 million by constructing what is essentially a “spec” building on behalf of its nonprofit “partner” organization the Aiken Corporation?

by Don Moniak
March 17, 2025

Two years ago, the $20 million downtown Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) project, funded by State of South Carolina “Plutonium Settlement” funds, was in its early predevelopment stages. At the time, the preferred location (1) was on a portion of the former Project Pascalis footprint where an L-shaped, 3-story, 45,000 square-foot building was proposed on the Warneke Cleaners and Holley House motel properties.

Also, at that time, the primary envisioned use for the property was that of workforce development (2) for the SRNL contractor, Battelle Savannah River Site (BSRA).

The great fanfare during the project introduction left no doubt about that intent. The top two floors were to be office space, and the ground floor was to be primarily a showcase for the lab, a place for public interactions where scientific poster sessions would adorn the halls.

That vision faded sometime in the summer of 2023 when the prospect of a long-term lease grew fainter(3). In September 2023, the Aiken Corporation, with an unofficial acquiescence by Aiken City Council, chose to locate a three-story, 36,000-square-foot facility on its own property on Newberry Street–that property was acquired by ACorp in July 2022 for $650,000. A series of emails from the September to November, 2023, time period also showed city officials discussing a building without any committed tenant; one that could be used for an entity other than SRNL.

With the Newberry Street decision made, the City and Aiken Corporation collaborated on moving forward with the design contract. First, the Aiken Corporation hired the architectural firm of Cheatham, Fletcher, and Scott to conduct design work. Then, the City took over the project and hired Cheatham as the City’s contractor. In other words, the City utilized an unofficial, indirect procurement process to hire an architectural firm for a contract exceeding one million dollars.

Between the time of the award of the design contract and the award of a construction contract to the firm of Allen-Batchelor Construction, the City bought the property for $752,230.23; a sum that included two years of interest on the Aiken Corporation loan and city and county taxes for 2022 and 2023. (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Breakdown of costs for purchase of one-acre of property on Newberry Street NW for the purpose of the SRNL/“Mixed Use” Building.


The Groundbreaking

On January 27, 2025, just over two years to the day of the project announcement, a ceremonial groundbreaking took place.

Missing from the groundbreaking festivities were representatives from SRNL. Also missing from the project sign was the SRNL logo. This was not the original intent of SRNL officials, who accepted an invitation to the function on January 10th, 2025. On January 20th, though, an event occurred which changed everything.

That event– a new Presidential administration came into power, and suddenly, federal leases were being canceled, funds were being frozen, and talk of selling off federal buildings was in the air.

On January 24th, SRNL Assistant Director Sharon Mara wrote to city officials that, per DOE guidance, the lab would not have a presence that day (Figure 2); and per DOE order, the lab logo could not adorn the project sign (Figure 3). However, lease discussions could continue.

Figure 2: Notification from Sharon Marra to City officials regarding SRNL absence from the groundbreaking ceremony. (click to enlarge)
Figure 3: Notification from Sharon Marra to have SRNL logo removed from the project sign. (click to enlarge)

This is not the first indication that future SRNL occupation of the facility would range from possible to precarious, or maybe not at all. As reported in One-Year Lease after One-Year Lease, as of January 2024, the SRNL contractor only had DOE permission to negotiate one-year leases, not longer-term five or even ten-year leases. In fact, by the time the facility is finished, BSRA’s first five-year contract is due to expire. Although a five-year renewal is expected, a renegotiated lower contract price is quite possible.

Still, eighteen months has passed since the siting decision was made, and there is still no lease or even a memorandum of understanding between the parties. The likelihood of DOE/SRNL permitting BSRA to enter into any new lease agreement may now possibly be fading away.

Who could occupy the facility if SRNL/BSRA does not, and who would own the building?

On February 26, 2024, Aiken City Council approved a “Framework Agreement” for future agreements with the Aiken Corporation regarding the project. This agreement required ACorp to relinquish ownership if SRNL/BSRA was not a tenant. (Pages 202-204)

The anticipated path forward was that the City of Aiken would purchase the Newberry Street property from Aiken Corporation, use the remainder of the $20 million Plutonium Settlement allocation to construct the facility, and then sell the facility and property to a yet-to-be-identified, for-profit subsidiary of the not-for-profit Aiken Corporation. (4)

When the facility is completed, the City will transfer ownership “pursuant to the terms of a subsequent Purchase Sale Agreement…which will, among other terms, specify a deed restriction providing for the return of the subject property to the City should the (Aiken Corporation) no longer desire to own or lease the building to an appropriate tenant.” (emphasis added). 

The intent of this latter clause, which appears to dictate that Aiken Corporation will own the building only if SRNL is a tenant, was indicated in City Manager Bedenbaugh’s supporting memorandum that the Aiken Corporation’s “to-be-formed entity will lease the building to SRNL.” (emphasis added.) 

At the February 26th meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh was asked to define “appropriate tenant.” He did so in a manner that implied some wiggle room, stating:

“There is kind of a clawback, should that not follow through or the mission changes.”

He noted that he would define an appropriate tenant as “based on a mission that is similar to what is stated in the opening paragraph of the National Lab or its successor agency.” 

On January 27, 2025, Aiken City Council approved a new agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with Aiken Corporation and its newly formed, for-profit property management company called Aiken Ventures LLC. Just as ACorp’s for-profit property management company, LED Inc., manages the downtown Amentum Building, Aiken Ventures LLC will manage the “Mixed Use” building on behalf of Aiken Corporation and the City of Aiken.

Missing from the January 27th MOU is the clawback provision and any reference to a deed restriction. Instead of Aiken Corporation ownership being contingent upon SRNL’s contractor being a tenant, the language in this agreement appears to provide a loophole:

“Ventures is expected to enter into a lease with SRNL, whereby SRNL will lease the second and third floors of the property on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between Ventures and SRNL.”

There is no contingency plan in the case of the SRNL contractor being unable to obtain DOE permission to obtain a lease.

There does remain, however, a “rent-free alternative.”

The original purpose of the $20 million was not to build a private “mixed-use” office building. It was not to further subsidize the City of Aiken nor its private partner the Aiken Corporation with an annual flow of federal funds that could be better put to better use.

The legislative intent was to construct “off-site infrastructure” for an institution whose operating contractor includes the state’s university system as part of the Battelle Savannah River Alliance. The only justification for awarding plutonium settlement funds for use by one of the defendant’s institutions, SRNL, was that the state is committed to an investment in the Battelle-led alliance from its university system. That commitment specifically included a workforce development facility.

If the City of Aiken truly wants the SRNL contractor to have a downtown presence, it would be wise to begin considering the option of deeding the property to one or all three of the State’s three major universities.

Footnotes

(1) The original choice by SRNL was the City’s parking lot property next to the City of Aiken Municipal Building, where a two-story garage topped by an office building was visualized in September 2022.

(2). As reported in The SRNL Project Was a Component of Project Pascalis, the facility constitutes the first stage in a much larger, $120 million state-funded program to Battelle Savannah River Alliance for SRNL workforce development.

(3) As reported in One-Year Lease After One-Year Lease, the prospect of a long-term lease became bleak by January 2024. To this day, there is still no signed lease or even a Memorandum of Understanding between SRNL, Aiken Corporation, and City of Aiken.

(4) The February 2024 “Framework Agreements” states that to pay for the facility, the City “will provide financing to Corporation, which it anticipates providing on an interest-free basis.” Thus, much of the rent proceeds will be used to pay for a building that was already paid for with the plutonium funds.

This provision is absent in the January 2025 MOU, which states that the City will deed the property to Aiken Corporation’s for profit Aiken Ventures LLC; and that if the property is put on the market the City has the right to buy it back for $1.