Category Archives: Project Pascalis 2022

The City of Aiken: Not Subject to FOIA Laws?

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. 269. – 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?

_________________________

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.

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.


$850,000 Loss Anticipated on First Sale of a Project Pascalis Property.

Three years after the City of Aiken, its Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) and the Aiken Chamber of Commerce collectively took control of the seven Project Pascalis properties, the first negative rate of return on that investment has been realized. An appraiser for the first Pascalis property to be sold, Newberry Hall, has described the AMDC and City’s 2021 purchase of the property as “above market value.”

In 2021, AMDC paid $2 million for the property, which came with a long-term lease with eight years remaining, a first right to purchase clause for the lessee, a stipulation to reduce any future sale price by the amount of the lessee’s building improvement investments, and an agreement to pay the lessee lost income during the Pascalis project demolition and reconstruction phase.

Since the Newberry Hall property was recently appraised for $1.5 million, and the lessee’s improvement investments total $0.35 million, the City of Aiken proposes to sell the property for $1.15 million. Thus, one year after ownership was transferred from the AMDC to the City, the property will be sold at a $0.85 million loss. The loss could be viewed as $1.075 million, since the property was encumbered by a lease at the time of the AMDC purchase and the “leased fee interest” market value is only $0.925 million.

As Aiken City Council moves forward with the sale of the property to the owners of the popular Newberry Hall events and catering business, questions regarding the future of the sale proceeds remain. The property was obtained with state funds from the plutonium settlement agreement that was allocated for redevelopment purposes, not the purchase and sale of commercial downtown properties. Will it be a misappropriation of state funds if City Council opts to place the sale proceeds into the General Fund for any purposes other than downtown and Northside redevelopment?

by Don Moniak
May 13, 2024

Project Pascalis was announced in mid-March of 2021 with some fanfare by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC). Details of the project, including the project’s downtown location, were not publicly disclosed.

Two months later, that initial version of the project failed when the first developer, GAC, LLC (Agent Weldon Wyatt), backed out of the project, and sought to renege on two purchase and sale agreements (PSA). The first was for $7.5 million for six properties owned by the Shah family of Aiken, and the second was for $2.0 million for the Newberry Hall property owned by the Anderson family of Aiken. Those agreements were negotiated and prepared, in part, by Aiken attorney and investor Ray Massey on behalf of WTC Investment, LLC. Again, no public disclosure was forthcoming.

When GAC backed out of the project, the City of Aiken, AMDC, and Aiken Chamber of Commerce secretly intervened to take assignment of the properties that were under contract to GAC’s property investment arm, WTC Investments, LLC (Agent Ray Massey.) The assignments, made through the Chamber, were completed for the purpose of salvaging a portion of the first, more grandiose Pascalis project; one that orginally included four to five-story apartments on both sides of The Alley.

The first assignment to the Chamber, with the City and AMDC listed as possible future assignees, was the package of six Shah family properties; it was signed on May 24, 2021. The second assignment to the Chamber was the Newberry Hall property; it was signed on June 3, 2021. All the purchase prices matched the collective $9.5 million offered by WTC Investments; which in the process was reimbursed its $135,000 in earnest funds.

In August 2021, Aiken City Council approved the issuance of up to $10 million in general obligation bonds to fund AMDC property purchases within the broad “Parkway District.” The existence of the $9.5 million in Pascalis project purchase and sale agreement assignments, held by the Chamber on behalf of the AMDC and City, was not publicly disclosed as the only set of properties then under consideration for purchase.

Three months later, the Chamber of Commerce’s interest in the Pascalis properties was transferred to the AMDC, which then paid $9.5 million for the seven properties, and reimbursed the Chamber its $135,000 in earnest funds. Only then were details of Project Pascalis finally released.

One month later, on December 6, 2021, the AMDC signed a $5 million Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) for the seven properties with the new developer, RPM Development Partners. RPM agent and investor Ray Massey signed the PSA on behalf of the developer. While the existence of the contract was publicly announced, the proposed sale price and other details were not discovered until a year later.

The $2.0 million purchase of the Newberry Hall property came with a long-term lease held by Patrick and Natalie Carlisle, the owners of the Newberry Hall events and catering business. The lease, first signed in in 2007 by owner Myrtle Anderson and lessees David and Margaret Sacks, was for 20 years—one ten-year period followed by two five-year renewal periods.

The first Newberry Hall contract signed by WTC in April 2021 that was assigned to the Chamber in June 2021, and executed by the AMDC in November 2021, contained an addendum with two new lease provisions. First, the Newberry Hall business owners would be granted the first right to own, or operate, the new conference center planned for the Pascalis project on the Newberry Hall property. Second, the business would be eligible for payments for lost income during the demolition and reconstruction period. The amended lease agreement stated, in part, that:

“The development of the (Pascalis) Project contemplates that the improvements on the Property would be demolished and replaced with a larger conference center and kitchen, and that (the) Carlisles would be compensated for loss of income during interruption of Carlisle’ s business, and would lease the replacement conference center and kitchen pursuant to a replacement lease and operating agreement, the terms of which are under discussion but are not finalized (the “Operating Agreement”).

If the Pascalis project failed and the AMDC and the City chose to sell the property, the lessee still retained the first right of purchase. That purchase price would be determined by an appraisal value minus the costs of investments made to the building during the term of the lease to date; in this case $350,000.

Between November 2021 and June 2022, lengthy and unproductive negotiations occurred between the AMDC and Newberry Hall for future ownership or operations of the planned Pascalis project conference center. The negotiations were further complicated in April 2022, when the City and the AMDC opted to try to repurpose the Park Avenue Aiken Municipal Building into the Pascalis Project conference center. In total, the AMDC spent just under $86,000 on its conference center effort; including $36,000 to reimburse Newberry Hall for its legal costs.

In June 2022 the Pascalis project faltered due to legal and contractual issues, and was paused pending a major reorganization and rebranding effort; again with no public disclosure. In addition, the second round of demolition application approvals were withdrawn. Shortly thereafter, a major lawsuit was filed to stop the project, effectively putting a halt to the reorganization effort. Two months later RPM withdrew from the $5 million PSA. Two weeks after that the AMDC cancelled the project.

Nine months later, in early May 2023, following months of tumultous and disorganized efforts, City Council dissolved the AMDC and ownership of the properties was transferred to the City. One month previously, City Council also approved spending $9.6 of its $25 million in plutonium settlement funds to pay off, in full, the Pascalis properties general obligation bond. The City’s request for funds included the misguided inclusion of Newberry Hall in the same category as the vacant Hotel Aiken—of having “fallen into disrepair.

Following the transfer of properties from the AMDC, progress towards the sale of Newberry Hall and other Pascalis project properties such as the Hotel Aiken were deferred as the only remnant of Project Pascalis, the SRNL/“Mixed Use” project, remained under deliberation.

Now, following at least four months negotiations, the City of Aiken and Newberry Hall have reached an agreement based on an appraisal by the firm of Willis Real Estate Services—an “as is” market value of $1.5 million and an “as is” leased fee interest value of $925,000 (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Market values for Newberry Hall identified in the recent appraisal. To date, the City of Aiken has only provided 19 pages of the 131-page appraisal. Availabe information regarding the purchase begins on Page 63 of the May 13, 2024 City Council agenda packet; ,with the well-written, plain English Appraisal Introduction, property data, and recent history of the property beginning on Page 66.


The appraisal includes the statement:

Based on comparable sales and the market conditions in 2021, the 2021 sale from Myrtle Anderson to the City of Aiken Municipal Development Commission for $2,000,000 appears to be above market and is not considered arm’s length. The City of Aiken Municipal Development Commission(City of Aiken”

Once the Newberry Sale property sale is finalized, the City of Aiken will realize a net loss of $0.85 million. If this appraisal had been made in 2021, when the AMDC purchased the property using city funds, then the City of Aiken will arguably realize a loss of $1.075 million.

Where will the revenues go?

On April 10, 2023, Aiken City Council approved spending $9.6 of the City’s $25 million Plutonium Settlement allocation to pay off the entire Pascalis general obligation bond debt. At that time, Council opted to not commit to the allocation of proceeds of future sales of the property.

Unlike previous sales of city property, the proposed Newberry Hall sale contains no reference to the future use of the $1.15 million of sale revenue. For example, in September 2021, City Council approved placing the $150,000 from the sale of the Mattie Hall property to the General Fund.

According to a February 21, 2024, letter from State Senator Tom Young (R-Aiken), the legislative intent behind the allocation of Plutonium Settlement funds expressly did not include the “reduction of local government debt obligations.” Yet, to date that has been the only purpose of the approved $9.6 million allocation by City Council from The City’s portion of the settlement funds.

If City Council opts to place Pascalis property sale proceeds into the General Fund, and not return it to its Plutonium Settlement funds account, the overall process would arguably constitute a misappropriation of state settlement funds. If Council opts to return the sale proceeds to its Plutonium Settlement fund account, then the legislative intent of the allocation would be preserved.

Additional Reading. from The Aiken Chronicles

The first 19 pages of Daniel Willis’ Newberry Hall appraisal can be found on Pages 66-85 of the May 13th City Council Agenda Packet. This section of the appraisal is written in plain English and contains property data, appraisal definitions, and an explanation for the conclusion. The remaining 112 pages have not been publicly disclosed.

The AMDC Purchase and Sale Agreements and Amended Newberry Hall Lease Agreements are available in the November 9, 2021, AMDC Meeting Agenda Packet.

Previously in the Aiken Chronicles.

How Much Project Pascalis Can the Taxpayer Stand provides a simple accounting of the known market values of the Pascalis properties in 2021 compared to the purchase prices. This was followed up by Project Pascalis Has Exposed Aiken City Officials as Lousy Real Estate Investors.

Project Pascalis Includes the Alley and Project Pascalis and The Wyatt Factor both offer detailed accounts of the first failed Pascalis project.

The Project Pascalis RFP offers a review of the chain of events leading up to the cancellation of the project.

The Pascalis Attorneys and The AECOM Plan both contain more detailed accounts of the City of Aiken’s and AMDC Pascalis project properties acquisition process and the first year of the project.

When No Info is Good Info… contains details of the Newberry Hall lease and amended lease.

Project Pascalis Conference Center Costs breaks down the $86,000 the AMDC spent on studies and appraisals in support of a Conference Center; which included $35,000 to pay the legal costs to the owners of Newberry Hall.

Project Pascalis and the Plutonium Settlement, Offsite-Infrastructure, and Failed Project Pascalis, A Mayor’s Legacy all include details about the Plutonium Settlement allocation process.

Why is the City Toying with 113 Jobs provides details of the effort to convert the former Municipal Building on Park Avenue to a conference center.

Rebranding Project Pascalis details how in late June 2022, the AMDC was in the process of cancelling the project and rebranding it as “The Aiken Community Improvement” project; the effort to redo the project was further curtailed by the July 2022 Pascalis lawsuit.

Keeping Up Appearances provides more details of the $9.6 million bond.



Project Pascalis Legal Costs

Known Project Pascalis legal costs to-date range between $300,000 to $350,000. Approximately two-thirds of the costs were for general counsel, and one-third for litigation.

By Don Moniak
November 21, 2023

A review of City of Aiken legal department invoices (1) from January 2021 to August 2023 shows known costs to-date for legal counsel related to Project Pascalis to be approximately $349,110 (Table 1). If only half of the legal costs incurred by the Design Review Board are estimated to be indirectly related to the project, then known directly related costs still exceed $300,000.

The greatest legal costs were incurred through general counsel work unrelated to any litigation. In total, approximately $256,775 in general counsel and document preparation costs were incurred by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), the city’s Design Review Board (DRB), the City of Aiken (COA), and paid for with taxpayer funds.

Legal costs to defend City of Aiken parties in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit have been lower. The lawsuit was filed on July 5 , 2022 in an effort to stop the project and hold the City of Aiken, AMDC, and DRB accountable for alleged violations of state and local laws. The City’s known costs to date are estimated at $91,883. Once all invoices are submitted, the costs are expected to exceed $100,000.

These figures are estimates, as not all invoices are available and the estimates are hindered by excessive redactions of basic, often innocuous, information under the pretense of “attorney-client privilege.” Only the City of Aiken can compile a precise and full accounting of legal costs.

Law Firm Invoices DatesTotal Billings Client
Davidson, Wren*Finance records$7,649+AMDC Ex. Dir.
Jim Holly4/22 to 7/23$91,025DRB**
Hull BarrettJanuary 2023$36,800Newberry Hall
Lindemann…**Finance Records $4,946+DRB
Morrisson 7/22 to 3/23$24,440+AMDC
McCants…5/22 to 10/22$1,200COA
Pope-Flynn2/21 to 1/23$146,867AMDC/COA
Smith, Robinson…5/22 to 8/23$30,923COA
Smith, Massey…5/21 to 3/22$5,260COA/AMDC
Known Totals 2/21 to 8/23$349,110
Table 1: Known Project Pascalis-related legal costs paid by the City of Aiken .
DRB = Design Review Board. AMDC = Aiken Municipal Development Commission.
COA = City of Aiken. “+” = higher costs due to unavailable invoices
*The City of Aiken has yet to provided invoices for the Lindemann Law Firm and Davidson and Wren Law Firm. Estimates are derived from city finance records.
**Not all DRB non-litigation costs are directly related to Project Pascalis. Some DRB legal costs involved other cases before the Board. However, the Pascalis project itself triggered the hiring of independent outside counsel. Prior to May 2022, the DRB rarely had legal counsel present. Beginning in May 2022, legal counsel became involved on a monthly basis. Therefore , all of the DRB’s costs are considered to be Pascalis-related, whether directly or indirectly.

Summary of Key Legal Moments During Project Pascalis

Project Pascalis originated as a $75-100 million public-private endeavor led by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), which proposed the demolition and redevelopment of half a block of downtown Aiken. The project designers originally envisioned a new five-story hotel, a five-story apartment complex, city-owned parking garage and conference center, and ground floor retail space. Funding was to be provided by a variety of sources, including hospitality taxes and upwards of $25 million of state of South Carolina plutonium settlement funds.

The project occurred in two parts. The initial phase, from March to May of 2021, involved two major steps. First, WTC Investments (Agent Ray Massey) procured the rights to purchase seven downtown properties from two property owners, the Shah family and the Anderson family for a total sum of $9.5 million. Those Purchase and Sale Agreements (PSA) were signed by WTC partner Weldon Wyatt.

Second, the AMDC signed a predevelopment Cost Sharing Agreement with GAC LLC (Agent Weldon Wyatt), and design work began. As described in Project Pascalis Includes the Alley, the original conceptual design was more ambitious, and actually included the construction of multi-story apartments sandwiching The Alley, in part on properties purchased in March 2021 by Aiken Alley Holdings (Agent Ray Massey).

Page five of the cost sharing agreement contained a provision allowing the AMDC to take assignment of any “property interest” owned or controlled by the developer if the developer “determined to cease development prior to May 17, 2021.”

This first project phase ended abruptly the first week in May of 2021, after GAC withdrew from the project. A series of meetings occurred between members of GAC/WTC and AMDC and City Council representatives to negotiate the future of the project and its properties. By May 3rd the conceptual plans were revised to reflect a less ambitious project involving only the Shah and Anderson properties. (Figure 1)

The final, hours-long (2) meeting held on May 6th is believed to be when the decision was made to move forward on exercising the assignment rights in the cost sharing agreement.

Figure 1. “Massing Model” of downsized Project Pascalis. From: Project Pascalis Conceptual Plans, May 3, 2021 Revision.


The second phase and most familiar phase of the project then began, with an AMDC, City of Aiken, and Aiken Chamber of Commerce collaborative effort to obtain the purchase rights to the properties held by WTC. On May 22nd, the Chamber of Commerce and the Shah family inked the Assignment contract; and on May 25th the two entities inked the PSA. On June 3rd, the assignment process was repeated for the Anderson family’s Newberry Hall property.

Prior to the signings, the AMDC began to solicit proposals from select developers to replace GAC, but without publishing a public Request for Proposals as required by South Carolina Community Development Law. By mid-June of 2021, the AMDC had selected an unidentified developer with whom to pursue further negotiations.

The assignments, purchase and sale agreements, and project reorganization were not publicly disclosed, and project planning continued in secrecy until November of 2021.

From March of 2021 to September of 2021, the AMDC had no attorney under contract specifically for general counsel. It obtained advice as needed, primarily from Attorney Gary Pope Jr of the Pope-Flynn Law Group. Important, decisional AMDC meetings involving the $100 million project without any general counsel attorneys listed as attendees include the following:

  • March 17, 2021, special-called meeting to discuss and improve a resolution authorizing the negotiation and execution of the GAC cost sharing agreement.
  • June 8, 2021, regular meeting where AMDC Chair Keith Wood was authorized to enter into negotiations with a “potential Project Pascalis developer. “
  • April 18, 2022, special-called meeting to discuss and approve
    a resolution in support of the “conveyance” of a portion of Newberry Street to Pascalis project developer RPM Development Partners. 

Not until early October of 2021, when the Pope-Flynn Law Group signed a Dual Engagement Letter, did the AMDC have its first official attorney.

In early November of 2021, the AMDC used $9.6 million in city funds to take assignment of, and purchase, the seven Pascalis properties. Pope-Flynn prepared the general obligation bond issuance that enabled the purchase.

One month later the AMDC announced the selection of RPM Development Partners as its “preferred developer;” and the signing of a $5 million Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with RPM for the same Pascalis properties purchased one month earlier for $9.6 million.

Ten days after the PSA was signed, a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking Pascalis project developers was belatedly published in the Aiken Standard. As reported in The Project Pascalis RFP, a proof of the RFP public notice was prepared by AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. in early November, but a revised proof was submitted by Mr. Pope on December 9, 2021, for publication on December 13th and 20th—well after RPM was chosen as the preferred developer.

Over the next six months, the AMDC and City of Aiken vigorously pursued the project, a pursuit supplemented by strong support from the DRB. But the further along the project progressed, the more citizen opposition widened and intensified. By early May numerous legal issues had been raised, a petition to change city code emerged from a movement called the Do It Right Alliance, and the threat of a lawsuit loomed.

By late April of 2022, the increased public scrutiny, ethics concerns related to the Aiken City Attorney, and the increases in project complexity prompted city officials to retain more outside legal counsel for the Design Review Board (DRB) and Aiken City Council—though not for the AMDC.

The process looks to be deeply flawed. It looks to be on the way to a failed project.” Aiken resident Gilbert Kennedy, at April 20, 2022 AMDC public forum, afternoon session. 1:33 to 1:36 of meeting mark on You Tube video.


First, Attorney Jim Holly signed an agreement in late April of 2022 to represent the DRB during its regular deliberations and in any future litigation. Holly’s agreement included the stipulation that additional legal assistance would be provided in the case of any litigation.

Then, on May 12th Attorney Daniel Plyler of Smith-Robinson Law Firm signed a contract to act as “special counsel and/or City Attorney on an as-needed basis.”

In late June of 2022, the AMDC decided to reorganize the project by means of amending the obsolete redevelopment plan that provided part of the project basis, holding an overdue public hearing on that plan, and issuing a new Request for Proposals. A Draft Public Notice of the changes was prepared, but never released.

One week later, before the planned change in course could be publicly announced, the Blake et al vs City of Aiken lawsuit was filed. The Plaintiffs sought “declaratory relief” to determine City Council, the AMDC, and the DRB had violated various state and local laws, an injunction to halt the project, and a finding of FOIA violations.

Following the lawsuit, the number of legal firms actively representing city interests doubled. The Morrison Law Firm and Davidson, Wren, and Demasters Law Firm (3) were retained to defend AMDC-related issues; and the Lindemann Law Firm was chosen to join Attorney Jim Holley on the DRB’s defense team.

In mid-September of 2022, as the deadline for closing on the PSA loomed, RPM chose to terminate its involvement. Two weeks later, the AMDC followed suit at its September 29th meeting. In personal public statements made after the meeting, Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chairman Chris Verenes cited the belated publication of the Pascalis RFP in December 2021 as a key issue leading to the project cancellation.

Even after the cancellation, the Pascalis lawsuit continued in the courts for another year, marked by a long series of Motions for Summary Judgement, Protection from Discovery, and More Definitive Statements.
On September 19th, a hearing was held on the Defense Motion for Summary Judgement to render the case moot due to the project cancellation, repeal of the Newberry Street partial privatization ordinance, and dissolution of the AMDC between September 2022 and May of 2023.

This past week, two of the three Plaintiff causes of action were dismissed in a brief decisional notification that stated:

On September 19, 2023, Defendant’s motion for summary judgement came before the Court. After carefully considering the memoranda submitted by counsel, case law, and other relevant filings, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgement with respect to Plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action–declaratory judgement and permanent injunction (as well as other equitable relief sought)–but the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgement with regard to Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for violations of S.C. Freedom of Information Act.

The Judge’s order justifying the decision has yet to be released. The case remains open, but only the merits of alleged FOIA violations will be heard.

(More complete timelines for the Pascalis project can be found at A Project Pascalis Timeline (2019 to June 2022), and Project Pascalis Timeline Update: June 2022 to August 2022. The progression of various project designs can be viewed at The Changing Views of Project Pascalis.)

Informational Limitations on Legal Costs

Total costs remain unknown for four reasons:

1. The data is incomplete, with the last available invoice from August 2023. There is a complete absence of invoices for all or parts of 2023 from the Lindemann and Morrison Law Firms. City records do show a December 2022 payments to Lindemann Law Firm, and Davidson and Wren; and to Davidson and Wren in September 2022. As the payment totals are similar to those paid to the other Pascalis lawsuit defense firms, and are used in these estimates.

2. The invoices from Attorney Jim Holly for his counsel to the Design Review Board (DRB) mix both litigation costs and costs related to the normal operations of the DRB.

3. Invoices contain extensive redactions made by the City of Aiken under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption for records that qualify under the broad category of attorney client-privilege. Many of these redactions for non-litigation services have been shown to involve innocuous information. However, there is generally enough information available, such as the names defendants and Plaintiff attorneys, to easily determine which invoices are project related (Figure 2)

Figure 2: December 2022 to March 2023 invoice from Morrison Law Firm for Pascalis lawsuit defense of the AMDC. The name of the case is inexplicably redacted. The one-hour call with David Jameson occurred the day before he resigned from the AMDC. Morrisons and Smith-Robison’s invoices all contain references to Plaintiffs’ attorneys. Obtained via FOIA request.

4. It is unknown whether the city’s insurance and risk provider has, or will, reimburse any legal costs. On July 5, 2022, the city submitted a claim to its insurance provider, the South Carolina Municipal Insurance and Risk Fund (SCMIRF). As of January 2022, that claim remained open. (Table 2).

Table 2: Excerpt from City of Aiken 2022 Insurance Claims. Claim for Pascalis lawsuit filed July 5, 2022 and remained open and under review as of January 1, 2023. Obtained via FOIA request.


Law Firms and Total Costs

The legal services to date can be delineated into two broad categories: general counsel unassociated with the Pascalis lawsuit, and actual litigation. A third category is indirect costs of DRB outside counsel—representation deemed as unnecessary prior to Pascalis. A two-to-one ratio of general counsel (Table 3) to litigation costs (Table 4) is estimated; and indirect costs are estimated to be less than $50,000.

Legal costs have been lower than expected for the Pascalis lawsuit litigation due the relatively low hourly billing of City of Aiken and AMDC defense attorneys—which are close to half the hourly rate charged by the Pope-Flynn Law Group. Another cost reduction factor was the mutual decision in February of 2023 to remove individuals from the list of defendants.

In total, thirteen attorneys from nine law firms have provided various Pascalis project-related legal services to the City of Aiken, the AMDC, and the DRB. This list consists of:

  • Landrum-based Jim Holly has represented the Design Review Board (DRB) during its public hearing process, and in the lawsuit. He signed a Letter of Engagement on April 25, 2022. In the absence of the project, his services would likely have been unnecessary.
  • Aiken-based Hull-Barrett of Aiken represented Newberry Hall in negotiations with the AMDC regarding its lease with the AMDC and future management and ownership of the Pascalis project’s proposed conference center. As described in Project Pascalis Conference Center Costs, the AMDC reimbursed Hull Barrett this past January for Newberry Hall’s legal costs associated with those negotiations. 
  • Columbia-based Lindemann Law Firm has represented the Design Review Board (DRB) in the Pascalis litigation. Its invoices have yet to be provided by the City of Aiken. 
  • Aiken-based McCants and Nance represented the City of Aiken and Attorney Gary Smith in two smaller, earlier lawsuits, both of which dismissed over a jurisdictional issue. McCants also represents City Attorney Gary Smith in the Pascalis lawsuit—but since Smith is an independent contractor and McCants did not submit an invoice for that defense in 2022, it is assumed here that the city is not funding Mr. Smith’s defense.
  • Columbia-based Morrison Law Firm provided the AMDC with its legal defense in the Pascalis lawsuit, while Attorney Michael Wren of Columbia-based Davidson and Wren represented the AMDC’s Executive Director. 
  • Columbia and Spartanburg-based Pope-Flynn provided intermittent legal services to the AMDC between February and October of 2021, before signing the agreement to officially represent the commission.
  • Attorney Daniel Plyler of Columbia-based Smith-Robinson was retained by the City of Aiken in mid-May of 2022 for “General Counsel and acting City Attorney” in Pascalis-related matters. Smith-Robinson then represented Aiken City Council in the lawsuit.
  • Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes (SMBGM) provided intermittent and limited services.  Most notable were $3,150 worth of billings in May of 2021 for “Title Searches of the Hotel Aiken and Anderson Properties,” and document preparation believed to be the Pascalis properties assignments.
FirmClient Cost
HollyDesign Review Board $68,268*
Pope-FlynnAMDC $141,673
Smith Robinson City of Aiken $4,775
Smith Massey et al City of Aiken $5,220+
Hull BarrettNewberry Hall$36,800
Total $256,776
Table 3: Known Pascalis project general counsel legal fees.
* Jim Holly’s fees related to Pascalis are intermixed with fees related to the normal DRB hearing process. However, the DRB had always functioned with in-house counsel prior to Pascalis. Three-quarters of his total fees are estimated to be for non-litigation.
Law Firm Client Cost
Davidson, WrenAMDC Staff $7,649
HollyDRB $22,756*
LindemannDRB $4,496
McCantsCity of Aiken $1,200
MorrisonAMDC $24,440+
Pope-Flynn*AMDC $5,194
Smith, Robinson City of Aiken $26,148+
Totals $91,883
Table 4: Known Pascalis project litigation costs. fees..
*One-quarter of Jim Holley’s total fees are estimated for litigation, which is similar to the billings from the other two major litigation firms. ** Pope-Flynn did not directly represent the AMDC during litigation. Its role was as an intermediary between the commission and its attorneys.

Law Firms

Pope-Flynn Law Group

At $300-350 per hour, the Columbia and Spartanburg-based Pope-Flynn Law Group was the highest-priced of the project’s legal advisors. In total, Pope-Flynn earned $146,960 (Table 5), the most among all project law firms, of which approximately $5,145 was litigation related.

Pope-Flynn’s involvement in began in Feburary 2021, at the onset of the first project phase; previously it was retained as a bond counsel. Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. drafted the GAC/AMDC Predevelopment Cost-Sharing Agreement, and was working on an incentive agreeement for GAC before the project collapsed.

According to its May 2021 invoice, Pope-Flynn was noticeably absent after Mr. Pope attended the May 6th meeting to chart the project’s future. The firm was uninvolved in the property assignments and recruitment of potential developers that revived the project.

Pope-Flynn resumed intermittent legal services in June of 2021, and in early October signed its agreement to officially represent the commission.

 The firm immediately assisted in unsuccessful negotiations with RPM to reach project Master Development and Purchase and Sale agreements; and with Newberry Hall towards an agreement on the future operations of the proposed conference center.

Other notable aspects of the Pope-Flynn representation included: 

  • A marked rise in billable hours after citizen challenges and objections mounted. After billing an average of only 4 hours per month from December 2021 to February 2022, Pope-Flynn’s billings averaged 34 hours a month through June of 2022. The firm’s legal advice included responding to “overly broad FOIA requests” in March of 2022, and ethics concerns in May of 2022.
  • An alleged lack of advice regarding SC Community Development law. (4) According to former AMDC Chairman Keith Wood’s September 29, 2022, public statement, the commission was “first informed of the detailed requirements of the Community Development Act by the staff and the AMDC attorney on June 23, 2022; the same day that “staff and the AMDC attorney recommended the AMDC start the process over.”
  • Responsibility for preparing and publishing the Pascalis project Request for Proposals. Gary Pope, Jr. sent the RFP announcement to the Aiken Standard on December 9, 2021 for publication on December 13th and 20th—more than a week after the AMDC had selected RPM Development Partners, LLC as its “preferred developer,” and signed the $5.0 million PSA.
  • A. $34,500 service fee for processing the $9.6 million municipal bond issuance that allowed the AMDC to purchase the Pascalis properties in November, 2021. More detailed information on that bond issuance is 
    available in Keeping Up Appearances…
  • Representation of the AMDC at its April 20, 2022, public forums. Pope-Flynn billed the commission 11.4 hours and $3,990 for Mr. Pope’s presence at these events; which included the round trip drive from Columbia to Aiken, lunch at the Brew Pub, and $124.02 for mileage.  The total cost for the two meetings, during which Mr. Pope only spoke once, was $4150.72
  • Mr. Pope billed the city two hours and $700 after being asked to redact billing invoices that were already in the public domain in the commission’s “Financial Binder.” (Figure 3)
Figure 3: Redacted Pope-Flynn Invoice for April 2022. When compared to the unredacted version, “Project Pascalis” is redacted from the heading but remains in the expense column, and “Community Meetings” is redacted in the 4/18/22 entry but not in the 4/20 entry. This invoice illustrates how much of the redaction process involves information that is not confidential or privileged.
Employee Role Hourly Rate
Gary Pope, Jr. Attorney$325-350
CD RhodesAttorney$300
Paralegals$120-175/hr
Month / Year Hours $ Billing MilesExpenses
February 2021  0.5$162
March 202118.5$ 5923216$121.00
April 2021 4.5$ 1462.50
May 2021 8.2$ 2784.84
June 2021 6.8$ 2269.36106$ 59.36
July 2021 None Reported 
August/September  202115.7$ 5102.50
October 202150.1$15812.50162$ 91.84
November 2021**Fee $34500.00$700.00
November 202162.8$19495.00384$654.58***
December 2021***  3.4$ 1022.08
January 2022   1.7$  595.00
February 2022  5.7$ 1970.00
March 202223.1$ 8084.51106$. 62.01
April 202222.0$ 7690.00424$284.74
May 202231.0$10850.00386$219.96
June 202259.0$20360.00318$186.03
July 2022  7.7$ 2670.00
August 2022  5.3$ 1855.00
September 2022  4.7$ 1620.00
December 202200
January 2023 2.0$700
Totals 332.7$145,6282102$2379.52***

Table 5: Pope-Flynn billings by month.
*Service Fee for $9.6 million bond Issuance for purchase of Pascalis Properties.
**$654.50 in expenses including $430 for the legal notice for Request for Proposals publication in Aiken Standard, which was published ten days after AMDC signed a contract with RPM Development Partners, LLC. 
***Total expenses includes $1,239.04 for mileage reimbursement


Holly Law Firm.

Attorney Jim Holly, who operates a sole-proprietorship law practice, has been the second largest recipient of project-related legal fees. Mr. Holly was retained to advise the DRB after City Attorney Gary Smith ended all involvement in the project sometime in April 2022. Mr. Holly’s fee is $275 per hour.

Mr. Holly has deep and broad experience with local government legal issues. He counseled the City of Aiken from 1985-1995, when he was the last in-house City Attorney; and served as Aiken County Attorney for a total of 8 years (2007-2009 and 2014-2020). In the past two years, Mr. Holly has also guided the City Council redistricting process and other matters.

Much, but not all, of his general counsel work on behalf of the DRB was directly related to the Pascalis project. That work included the DRB’s preparation to hear the second round of proposed demolitions, the request to declare a state of “Demolition by Neglect,” of the Hotel Aiken and other Pascalis properties, and the litigation itself.

Indirect fees are considered here for the simple reason that the the DRB routinely operated without outside counsel prior to Pascalis. Most of its work involves the more mundane issues of replacing gutters, windows, stone walls, fences, mailboxes, roofs, etc on historic district structures; and not reviewing major projects.

Month Hours $Billing Task 
May 2022 8.90$2,447Petition *
May 202229.40$8,095DRB management
June 202225.05$6,889DRB management
July 202227.6$7,590DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
August 202214.8$4,070DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
September 20228.1$2,727DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
October 202220.4$5,610DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
November 202235.1$9,652DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
December 202219.95$5,486DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
January 202314.10$3,887DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
Feburary 202320.10$5,527DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
March 202313.85$3,808DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
April 2023 11.00$3,025DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
May 202325.15$6,916DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
June 202328.15$7,500DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
July 202328.35$7,796DRB Mgmt and Lawsuit 
Totals331$91,025
Table 6: Jim Holley’s monthly billings since April 2022.
* As reported in The Pascalis Attorneys, Part 2, Mr. Holly was assigned the task of reviewing the statute cited in the Do It Right! petition to repeal or add City ordinances.


Morrison Law Firm

The Morrison Law Firm, which has defended the AMDC in the Pascalis lawsuit, has earned $24,440 and been reimbursed for $595 in costs as of March 2022. (Tables 7 and 8)

Employee Position Hourly Rate
David MorrisonAttorney$180.00
Victor SeegerAttorney$135.00
Paralegal$80.00
Table 7: Morrison Law Firm Hourly Rates
Billing PeriodHrs Billed Billing $Other Costs
7/8/22 to 12/7/22128.5$21,110$585
12/13/22 to 3/28/2321.4$3,330$10
Totals 149.5$24,440$595
Table 8: Morrison Law Firm Pascalis Lawsuit Billing as of 3/31/23

One of Morrison’s most notable tasks involved preparation, along with City of Aiken defense counsel Daniel Plyler, with a Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) between the AMDC and City Council. In his December 9, 2022, resignation letter, Chairman Keith Wood wrote that the JDA “reads as a non-disclosure statement which restricts information to the public.” The JDA was also described in a November 21, 2022, email from Wood and Vice-Chair Chris Verenes to City Council as an impediment to “open, frank, and complete information,” and thus a disservice of to the Citizens of Aiken. (Figure 4)

Figure 4: Excerpt from Morrison Law Firm November 2022 Pascalis lawsuit legal fees invoice. The probably redactions are in red. The November 2022 invoice from Smith Robinson law firm shows a similar level of correspondence and phone calls with Morrison Law Firm.


Smith-Robinson Law Firm,.

Attorney Daniel Plyler of the The Smith-Robinson Law firm worked on a variety of tasks, earning $30,923 as of September 1, 2023 (Table 10). In May of 2022 he reviewed of the law governing the Do It Right Alliance petition to amend or add four City of Aiken ordinances. The results of that review, conducted in tandem with AttorneyJim Holly, are unknown.

Mr. Plyler also served as City Attorney at City Council Executive Sessions and Meetings in June and July 2022 where Pascalis issues were on the agenda. Beginning in July 2022 his primary role was as the City of Aiken and Aiken City Council defense attorney.

IndividualPositionHourly Rate
Daniel Plyler Partner$180-250
Rachel LeeAssociate Attorney$135-150
Paralegal$80
Table 9: Smith Robinson legal staff assigned to City of Aiken Pascalis project counsel . The hourly rates for the Pascalis litigation are lower than the rates charged for General Counsel and City Attorney roles.
Month Hours Billing $Tasks
May 2022  7.7 $1,700Review Petition Law
June 202212.3$3,075AMDC/City Council
July 202212.4$2,122Lawsuit and Council Meetings
July 202211.7$2,895Lawsuit
August 202222.3$3,619Lawsuit
Sept 2022 16.1$2,818Lawsuit
Oct 202217.8$3,210Lawsuit and Council Meetings
Nov 202216.4$2,967Lawsuit and Council Meetings
Dec 202211.7 $2,079Lawsuit
Jan 20233.8$600Lawsuit
Feb 202310.3$1,790Lawsuit
March 2023 202310.0$1,491Lawsuit
April 20234.0$680Lawsuit
May 20231.1$154Lawsuit
June 20235.0$841Lawsuit
June 20234.9$882Ethics Complaint with Ethics Commmission
Totals 160.3$30,923
Table 10: Smith-Robinson legal fees

Smith Massey Brodie Guynn and Mayes.

Due to redactions in the firm’s invoices and the myriad of monthly issues addressed by City Attorney Gary Smith, the costs associated with his law firm are the most difficult to determine.

The largest fees involved “Title Searches for Hotel Aiken and Anderson property” and “document review,” which totaled $3,840 (Figure 6). Between May 15th and May 25th of 2021, City Attorney Smith billed for nearly two hours of work involving “document review” at the same time another member of his firm prepared an unidentified document and conducted the title searches and document preparation.

Since no other law firm billed for services between May 12 and June 1, 2021; the period when the property assignments were completed, SMBGM is believed to be the firm that completed the assignment and purchase and sale contracts. In response to two emails, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh has neither denied nor confirmed this assessement.

City Attorney Smith had very limited involvement with Project Pascalis, with an estimated total of only about ten hours. However, his invoices and attendance at project-related City Council meetingindicate involvement at several key junctures, including:

  • The March 22, 2022 Joint Executive Session with the AMDC to discuss Project Pascalis. 
  • Reviewing and signing the $9.6 million general obligation bond issuance for the purchase of the Pascalis properties. 
  • Participating in the March 28, 2022 Newberry Street privatization ordinance public hearing; and same-day review of a letter from Attorney Dione Carroll—which she presented and read that evening.  
  • Research into issues on behalf of DRB Chairman McDonald Law and DRB staff liaison Mary Tilton on the eve of the DRB’s Hotel Aiken/Beckman Building demolition hearing. (Figure 5). During the work session preceding the hearing,  Ms. Tilton reportedly “Informed  the Board the Old Aiken Design Guidelines only require a plan to be presented. She read the Section on Demolition from Page 42 of the Old Aiken Design Guidelines: ‘Any application for a demolition shall include plans for the re-development of the site after demolition.’” (DRB Meeting Minutes, 3/1/22)
Figure 5:SMBGM Invoice entry for the day before the DRB demolition hearing.

Figure 6: SMBGM supplemental invoice for May 2021 showing Pascalis-related legal service; submitted in July 2021.


Commentary

Whether the total to-date is $300K or $350K, the Pascalis project legal costs have been very high and absorbed funds that were obviously better suited for more meaningful city operations and projects.

As a point of reference, on September 11, 2023, Aiken City Council debated whether to devote part of a budget surplus to giving Aiken Public Safety fire engine operators a four-percent or eight-percent raise, ultimately settling on the eight-percent. The eight-percent raise cost $64,000.

The true Pascalis project costs, legal and otherwise, are still unknown; in large part because throughout the project the city has been transparently opaque. A full and open accounting would be more possible by eliminating the excessive redactions of legal invoices, releasing all AMDC books and records, and placing all the information in the public domain.

Claiming FOIA exemptions for information that can be released is the surest path towards avoiding any lessons learned.

Or, as Aiken resident Rose Hayes wrote in a March 27, 2023 letter to the editor:

Questions also remain about the tax and private interest dollars that have already been sunk into the failed Pascalis project. In order to have a clear understanding of the city’s $9.6 million debt for that cancelled plan, and why it was necessary, an audit should be conducted by an outside firm. Trying to follow the twists and turns the Pascalis planning took is like trying to chase a snake through brush. An audit would be in keeping with the mayor’s commitment to transparency and helpful in future planning as ‘lessons learned.’”

Figure 5: Full version of featured photo, showing an assemblage of redacted legal invoice entries and known or estimated redacted information in red.



Footnotes

(1). A majority of the Invoices used in this article can be found at:

Invoices submitted since January 1, 2023 for Holly, Morrison, Smith-Robinson, Smith Massey Brodie Guynn and Mayes (SMBGM), and Pope-Flynn law firms.

2021 Invoices for SMBGM
2022 Invoices for SMBGM

Most of the 2021-2022 Invoices for Pope-Flynn begin on Page 154 in the AMDC Financial Binder.

Morrison Law firm invoice for 2022.

All invoices were obtained through several FOIA requests.

(2) Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. of the Pope-Flynn Law Group billed the AMDC 7.2 hours for the meeting. The billing included the 214 mile round from Spartanburg to Aiken, which is approximately 3.5 to 4.0 hours.

(3) Davidson, Wren, and DeMasters is one of two law firms credited with assisting SC Attorney General Alan Wilson with reaching the $600 million plutonium settlement. The other firm is Willoughby and Hoefer. AG Wilson awarded the two firms a combined $75 million in legal fees. The award met with an immediate objection from Governor Henry McMaster.

A lawsuit was filed by Attorney Jim Griffin on behalf of the S.C. Public Interest Foundation and John Crangle. On October 23, 2023, State judge Daniel Coble dismissed the suit, claiming that as an Executive Officer of the state, AG Wilson is entitled to issue such awards. Coble had been assigned the case by the State Supreme Court, where an appeal is again likely.

(4) On October 28, 2021, Pope-Flynn associate CD Rhodes billed the AMDC two hours to “Review Community Development Act. Review records related to AMDC re the same. Exchange emails and confer with G. Pope re the same.” There is no record of the firm briefing the AMDC on SC Community Development Law.