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 beforethe 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.
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 regulationsregarding the formation of and minutes kept by committees, yet it appears these were not adhered to when it comes to this noname advisory committee.
Sec. 2-38. – Powers with respect to offices, boards, commission, etc.(a)The council, by ordinance, may create, change and abolish offices, departments, boards, agencies and commissions.(b)The council may appoint and remove all members of the municipal boards, agencies and commissions established by the council, state law or constitution, except as otherwise provided by state law. Such boards and commissions shall serve as advisory bodies to the council and shall not exercise administrative responsibility, except as may be otherwise provided by law. Terms of the board, agency or commission members shall be as provided by ordinance, state law or constitution.(Code 1980, § 2-21)
Sec. 2–69.– Hearings by special committees. The city council may appoint a special committee to assist in or hold a public hearing for the council at any time upon any matter pending before it. Minutes or reports of hearings held by special committees shall be filed with the city clerk as public records.(Code 1980, § 2-39)
Additionally, the State of South Carolina state Freedom of Information Act laws when it comes to public bodies and public meetings:
SECTION 30-4-20.Definitions. (a) “Public body” means any department of the State, a majority of directors or their representatives of departments within the executive branch of state government as outlined in Section 1-30-10, any state board, commission, agency, and authority, any public or governmental body or political subdivision of the State, including counties, municipalities, townships, school districts, and special purpose districts, or any organization, corporation, or agency supported in whole or in part by public funds or expending public funds, including committees, subcommittees, advisory committees, and the like of any such body by whatever name known,
Key Points and Questions on the Committee
As half of the eight-member committee are paid public employees or paid elected officials, the group appears to be funded, in part, by public funds which appears to make this committee a “Public Body”.
According to information obtained via FOIA on the City’s contract with Colliers (the firm selected to market the properties) the firm will be paid in commission for their services upon the sale of the properties.
Committee member Mark Chostner, listed as ‘Project Manager” in the group was also involved with Project Pascalis and paid for his services. Are taxpayers paying for his services on this committee, or is he working on a volunteer basis? A FOIA request has been submitted for any invoices on this project. 4/24/25 Update: The City of Aiken has determined that there are no invoices from the period of April 2024 to the current date from Capstone Services for services regarding the sale of the Pascalis properties.
Committee member Barbara Price, architect with McMillian Pazdan Smith, (the same firm involved with the City’s “Mixed Use Project”) could also be paid for her services. A FOIA request was made for any invoices submitted regarding this project and The City of Aiken has determined that there are no invoices for services from McMillan Pazdan Smith from the time period of April 2024 to the present.
If the unnamed advisory committee is deemed a public body according to Section 30-4-20 then it would also appear to be subject to FOIA laws according to Section 30-4-90 (those laws can be viewed in entirety here). According to South Carolina FOIA law:
SECTION 30-4-90.Minutes of meetings of public bodies. (a) All public bodies shall keep written minutes of all of their public meetings. Such minutes shall include but need not be limited to: (1) The date, time and place of the meeting. (2) The members of the public body recorded as either present or absent. (3) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided and, at the request of any member, a record, by an individual member, of any votes taken. (4) Any other information that any member of the public body requests be included or reflected in the minutes. (b) The minutes shall be public records and shall be available within a reasonable time after the meeting except where such disclosures would be inconsistent with Section 30-4-70 of this chapter.
No Public Notice, No Agendas, No Meeting Minutes
When the City was asked, via FOIA request for meeting notices, meeting agendas and meeting minutes the city responded by saying:
“The meetings were not public meetings, so notice was not required and no agendas were created. Additionally, there were no minutes taken of the meetings. “
So, in addition to ignoring municipal code on committee formation, the city feels their private meetings are not subject to SC Freedom of Information Act rules on meetings or notices of meetings.
City Solicitor Laura Jordan was asked by this writer if she could explain why the city believes this committee is not subject to local municipal code or FOIA laws but at the time of this publishing, no reply has been received.
A January 25, 2025 email to the Mayor from citizen Don Moniak also inquired about the “unnamed committee” asking if the committee intended to follow SC FOIA requirements. This email went unanswered until Mr. Moniak sent a follow-up on March 10th, wherein he also suggested the unnamed committee was operating in violation of both state FOIA laws and city municipal code. Mayor Milner responded via email on March 10th saying she would get an answer to Mr. Moniak’s concern. At the time of this publishing, no answer has been forthcoming.
Small Businesses in the Crosshairs, Citizens on the Hook, and a Public in the Dark
The City’s ongoing, high-stakes development plots have left the hard-working, small businesses housed in the Pascalis properties dangling in the crosshairs, their month-to-month fate unknown. One such business is the restaurant Taj of Aiken, a tenant in one of the Richland Avenue buildings. Restaurant owner Alok Kumar Aske went on the record at the April 14th, 2025 City Council meeting requesting the option to purchase the building or sign an extended lease — options he has actively pursued with the City each month the past year, options that have been afforded to other other Pascalis tenants but not to Taj of Aiken.
Citizen Jacob Goss Ellis followed with a strong endorsement of Kumar and the Taj crew, calling the establishment a “pillar of the community” and “an Aiken institution,” for their extraordinary community generosity, especially in times of crisis. Councilwoman Gail Diggs spoke of his generosity as well. However, no one on Council followed-up with a discussion of Kumar’s request.
Aiken citizens have been likewise kept in the dark regarding the fate of these publicly-owned properties, their input unsolicited and, at times, even made to feel unwelcome by those officials empowered to represent the people’s interests. As evidence of the latter, there is the comment made by City Council member Ed Girardeau, also a member of the unnamed advisory committee, who recently described the public as “idiots” to a hot mic at a recent City Council meeting.
Regarding the anticipated recommendation from this unnamed advisory committee, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh was quoted in a March 11 Aiken Standard article as saying: “The city council can accept the recommendation; reject it and pick another proposal; or reject it and all the other proposals and start the process again.”
Might we recommend starting the process by following municipal code and state FOIA laws and asking the citizenry what they would like done with these publicly owned assets?
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).
The City of Aiken property in The AlleyFigure 1b. The 50 ft mark on Newberry StreetFigure 1c: Properties involved in negotiations.
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 3: Proposed Ground Lease area submitted to Stuart Bedenbaugh by Ray Massey. The lease included the City’s property along The Alley and 50-foot-wide portions of Newberry Street, which itself extended alongside Aiken Alley Holdings’ existing properties. One substantive benefit of a ground lease with the City is that no property taxes would be due on the ground itself, but only on any structures on the property. The potential savings was, at a minimum, substantial. The benefits of a fixed-cost lease for 99 years were obvious—Massey’s group would enjoy a tax-free, inflation-free lease in a downtown market with property values on a sharp rise. The Brinkley Building is to the south (left) of the city property. (click to enlarge)\
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).
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).
“(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 proposal to demolish the historic Warneke Cleaners building and move the business to another nearby location on Richland Avenue was announced at the January 23, 2023 State of the City Address by Mayor Pro Tem Ed Woltz. The viability of this proposal appears to lack validity under the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which prohibits light industrial uses such as dry cleaners in the downtown business district.
From: Donald Moniak Date: Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 8:59 AM Subject: More questions. To: National Lab Aiken Project
“Mr. Jacobs,
Some more questions for your “feasibilty study.”
1. What is the status of the first report compared to the timeline provided on February 6th?
2. Why has there been no website established to solicit information, questions, and comments?
3. In regard to Warneke’s Cleaners, the initial report from COA was that it would be relocated to another nearby downtown location. How can a dry cleaner be relocated when dry cleaning is a prohibited use in the downtown district; and the two that exist now are allowed only as a nonconforming use?
1. City Councilman Ed Woltz is on the record as having said :
“The plan is to preserve the existing businesses on the Block leaving Newbury Hall untouched, relocate Warneke Cleaners to the buildings at front of Richland Avenue. These retail buildings on Richland Avenue will be renting and upgraded as part of the project and the Thai [Taj Aiken, which features Indian cuisine] restaurant would remain on Richland Avenue.”
2. However, the current zoning ordinance does not provide for dry cleaners as a permitted use in the downtown business district. Dry cleaners qualify as light industrial due to their status as a polluting entity. ”
Section 3.2.6(c)(2) of the COA Zoning Ordinance identifies dry cleaners as a light industrial use.
Light industrial use is prohibited in the downtown business district
Under Section 8.1.4, Nonconforming uses, the ordinance reads:
“Any use lawfully existing at the time of enactment of this Ordinance may be continued even though it does not conform with the provisions of this Ordinance for the District in which it is located. Similarly, whenever a text amendment or rezoning renders a use nonconforming, any existing lawful use may be continued. However, no building or structure or premises where a nonconforming use has ceased for more than 12 months, or has changed to a permitted or conforming use, shall again be used in a nonconforming manner.”
So how can Warneke’s be relocated within the downtown, as promised by City Council, when dry cleaners cannot be established downtown? Who was going to pay for this very expensive move even if it was allowed?
4. Are Warneke’s and Taj Restaurant being offered the opportunity to purchase their own buildings and property, much like Newberry Hall had that option in their previous lease?
How Three Pages in a $250,000 No-Bid City of Aiken Agreement with the Aiken Corporation Were Missing from the Publicly Available Version.
by Don Moniak May 13, 2023
On March 13, 2023, Aiken City Council approved a $250,000, no-bid professional services contract with the Aiken Corporation.
The contract authorized the architectural firm of McMillan Pazdan and Smith (MPS) to pursue predevelopment work, under the supervision of the Aiken Corporation, for a proposed downtown Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) “Workforce Development” office complex. The proposed complex involves four properties originally obtained in 2021 by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC)as the core properties in the failed Pascalis project.
The March 13th agreement cited a separate December 9th contract agreement between MPS and Aiken Corporation. Section E of the March 13th contract specifies:
“The parties acknowledge that the City previously contacted the Developer with the goal of having the Developer engage various experts to perform certain services. Pursuant to that request, the Developer entered into an Engagement Agreement with McMillan Pazdan Smith ( hereafter ” MPS”) dated December 9, 2022, a copy of. which is attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement.”
The December 9th agreement also contained provisions not found in the first eleven pages of the March 13th contract, and not divulged during the only public meeting to date. Specifically, the December 9th contract referenced scheduling a series of private meetings, and the Aiken Corporation both overseeing the construction phase and eventually owning the facility. (The December 9th contract is on pages 12-14 here.)
This is the second significant document pertaining to the SRNL project that had to be obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. (1) As reported in Project Labscalis Operating Costs, the city’s “Savannah River Litigation Settlement Fund Request” described an undisclosed, $250,000 annual maintenance and labor cost to be borne by the city.
The Incomplete March 13th Professional Services Contract
On March 13, 2023, Aiken City Council approved a no-bid “Professional Services Agreement” (2) with the Aiken Corporation (3) worth up to $250,000. In it, Aiken Corporation is defined as “the developer.”
The funding is for “pre-development work” by the architectural firm of McMillan, Pazdan, and Smith (MPS). The agreement specifies that a 45,000 square foot, three-story “Workforce Development Center” for the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) will be built.
The planned location identified for the downtown lab project was identified as four properties that were formerly part of the failed Pascalis project (4), and purchased by the AMDC in November 2021. The AMDC was dissolved on May 8, 2023; with its assets and properties now defaulting to city ownership.
The contract includes a provision for the Aiken Corporation to pursue negotiations to lease properties—still owned by the AMDC—to unidentified “third parties” such as SRNL. If Aiken Corporation owns or is a long-term leaseholder of the project buildings, it could collect more than $5 million in rental revenues in the first ten years of facility operations. (5)
Missing from the March 13th agreement was a December 9, 2022 agreement between the Aiken Corporation and MPS that was referenced three times as part of the larger agreement.
The December 9th agreement turned out to be three pages at the end of a fourteen page contract. The publicly available meeting agenda packet only provided the first eleven pages, and the March 13th agreement was approved in spite of the missing three pages.
During public comment preceding the vote to approve the March 13th contract, the fact that provisions appeared to be missing was conveyed to Council, but no explanation for the absence was forthcoming.
The December 9th Contract Between Aiken Corporation and MPS
The December 9th agreement consists of a “Letter of Engagement” written by MPS “Principal” K.J. Jacobs on November 30, 2022, and signed by Aiken Corporation Board Chairman Arthur “Buzz” Rich on December 9, 2022.
The letter began with a project summary with specificity on size, shape, and location:
“Thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal related to your proposed new, mixed-use building in downtown Aiken. We understand the proposed site is an +/- 0.55 acre, T-Shaped parcel bounded by Richland Avenue NW, Newberry Street NW, and Bee Lane. The project, which will be constructed and owned by the Aiken Corporation, is conceptualized as a mixed-use building containing 30,000 square feet of office space and a 10,000-15,000 square foot exhibition hall with associated meeting and support spaces.”
The original agreement between MPS and Aiken Corporation contains provisions not found in the incomplete, March 13th version provided to Council and the public.
First, it describes Aiken Corporation as both the developer during the construction phase, and the owner of the lab project properties. Whether this ownership would be outright or in the form of a long-term “ground lease” was not clarified.(5)
Second, it contained reference to a series of closed-door planning sessions with select “key stakeholders” that are never identified, a pattern reminiscent of the Project Pascalis invitation-only “influencer meetings.”
These meetings include:
“An intensive charette with key stakeholders to identify goals (and) confirm the scope of work and project schedule. These sessions will be conducted on-site so that we can facilitate meetings with various stakeholders with minimal disruption.”
“A handful of more detailed programming interviews with small groups of key project stakeholders.”
“A brief wrap-up with the leadership team to summarize our findings.” “Findings of the Programming Sessions…will be shared with the project leadership team for their review, comment, and approval.”
The March 13th contract approval was preceded by a series of events (6) that included a well-attended February 6th public forum—announced on January 28th as a City of Aiken event.
The forum was moderated by Aiken Corporation contractor representative K.J. Jacobs, who later described it as a “listening session.” The existence of the December 9th contract between MPS and Aiken Corp, and the scope of work described in it, was not disclosed during the meeting.
In fact, a slide showing a “Feasibility Study Milestone Schedule” omitted the timeline prior to the project announcement, and any private, closed-door meetings—although Mr. Jacobs did state the “report will be given to the City, the National Laboratory, and I suspect it’ll be made publicly available.” (19 minute mark of meeting)
Feasibility Study schedule presented on February 6, 2023. Unless it has not been made public, the preliminary study is now a month overdue. The final report and second public input session is now two weeks overdue.
During the forum, MPS created the impression that building size, shape, and location were yet to be determined:
“We have not been retained to design a building. We’ve not yet designed a building. We’ve done almost nothing so far okay. What we’re here to do what we’ve been hired to do is to do what amounts to a feasibility study to understand all of the opportunities and constraints around the Savannah River National Labs desire to build a new building downtown.”
“I’ve read a few things where it sounds like all the puzzle pieces have already (been decided),. This person’s moving here, this building’s getting torn down. Y’all none of that’s been decided, okay. Someone may have said that, but it’s really people just starting to talk and think about what what might happen. Nothing is going to be decided until we get to the end of this process and are able to put put these things together and find out what makes the most sense for the city of Aiken and the citizens of Aiken, the constituents, all the stakeholders, and the folks at the lab that are the reason we’re here in the first place .” (emphasis added)
In regards to the size of the building, “speculation is completely premature.”
“Only after (the) final report is issued does any real site planning whether it’s on this site or another site does any of that start. Then we’ll then we’ll have what is traditional site planning and blocking and stacking exercise where we start to understand how the program for the building might fit onto this site or another site. “
During Aiken City Council’s May 8, 2023 public meeting (19:00 mark), the missing December 9th contract provision was submitted to Council. No council members commented about its existence or its absence from the publicly available March 13th agreement.
Summary
Aiken City Council approved a resolution on March 13th to accept a no-bid $250,000 agreement with the Aiken Corporation that defined the latter as the “The Developer.” The agreement also authorized Aiken Corporation to negotiate leases with third parties.
Missing from the publicly available March 13th agreement a three-page, December 9, 2022, agreement between Aiken Corp and MPS that was incorporated into the legal agreement. It described Aiken Corporation as the future owner of the SRNL facility. The three-page agreement withheld from citizen review and scrutiny was only disclosed via a FOIA request.
The December 9th agreement contains provisions for private meetings of “key stakeholders” that were not conveyed during a February 6th public forum. In addition, forum attendees were told several times that no decision had been made on the size, shape, and location of the facility.
Like Project Pascalis, deliberations for the SRNL project began in secrecy and continued in secrecy for more than a year, ultimately resulting in a decision to locate it on Pascalis project properties following the failure of that $100 million project—thus the hybrid moniker of “Project Labscalis.”
Like Project Pascalis, “key stakeholders” do not appear to include the general public. Like Project Pascalis, it appears that public input will be restricted to the aesthetics of the project, and not its location, size, or shape. One way of describing this now common scenario is that “key stakeholders” choose the menu for the planning table, while the general public only gets to select the salad dressing.
Footnotes
(Footnote 1). The fact that the missing December 9th document was cited in the March 13th contract means the city was legally obligated to provide it in the absence of a FOIA request. However, a FOIA request was necessary after officials declined to provide it, and then it took more than a month to obtain— the request was filed on March 22nd following a failed attempt to obtain it via a simple request.
The request was not addressed April 5th—the statutory ten-day business day limit to respond. The first response was accompanied by a $593.99 bill (below) involving 11 hours of undefined “Economic Development” time at $48 per hour.
Initial $593.99 bill for a FOIA request involving fewer than ten short documents. After the only searchable item was removed the three page, December 9th contract was provided at no cost—-as mandated under FOIA for any records that are cited in any public meeting or meeting agenda packet for the previous six months.
The requested information was:
“Pertaining to the Professional Services Agreement with the Aiken Corporation approved by City Council on 3/13/23, as found in cityofaikensc.gov/cca :
a. Copies of the request or requests from the City of Aiken to Aiken Corporation, as reported in this statement in Section E of the agreement: “The parties acknowledge that the City previously contacted the Developer with the goal of having the Developer engage various experts to perform certain services.” This would include any emails to the Aiken Corporation’s Arthur “Buzz” Rich from any account from cityofsc.govduring the period September 29, 2022 to December 10, 2022.
b. The copy of the 12/9/22 agreement between Aiken Corporation and MPS referenced in that same paragraph.
c. A copy of the MPS document dated 2/27/23 referenced in the same paragraph.
d. A copy of the MPS engagement letter of 11/30/22 referenced in Exhibit A Part iv.
e. A copy of any draft lease agreement between City of Aiken and Aiken Corporation for properties cited in the agreement.”
Following receipt of the $599.93 bill, the request was modified to remove item (a). That left only items 2-5, suggesting the bill was primarily related to Item (a.)
On April 28th, the three-page, December 9th Aiken Corporation/MPS contract was provided, without any costs, by City Solicitor and FOIA officer Laura Jordan; with this accompanying statement:
“The attached agreement has all documents that you are looking for. The last three pages are on MPS letterhead and that is the Execution Agreement mentioned dated 12/9/22. The other document on MPS letterhead dated 3/8/2023 is actually the February 27, 2023 document. The wrong dates (were) used in the agreement.”
The $593 bill was for a several documents. After One was provided at no cost and one did not yet exist (lease agreement); meaning the $593 bill was for what is likely only a few records pertaining to the City’s initial contact with the Aiken Corporation.
Footnote (2) The “Professional Services Contract” provided to City Council on March 13th only included the first eleven pages in the document provided here. Three pages were missing. The city’s 250,000, no-bid contract with the Aiken Corporation includes frequent references to the Aiken Corporation as the “The Developer.” As already stated, the December 9, 2022 Aiken Corporation agreement with MPS was incorporated into the contract.
According to Pages 6-7, $75,000 is initially dedicated to paying MPS, via Aiken Corporation, to conduct public relations work. Among the provisions in the March 13th contract are requirements for MPS to:
Develop a strategic communications plan to identify a guiding strategy for the project.
Provide guidance to Aiken Corporation on website revisions.
Assist Aiken Corporation in the execution of communications plans.
Monitor project-specific email account to assist Aiken Corporation in accepting feedback, and providing appropriate comments back to members of the public
Graphic design services to help develop a project brand.
Footnote (3). The Aiken Corporation is a nonprofit organization created by, and serving at the discretion of, Aiken City Council; but acts in an independent manner. Its primary donor is the City of Aiken. Such an arrangement is known as “quasi-governmental.” All publicly available information can be found here in the City of Aiken’s document repository.
Footnote (4) The proposed location for the facility involves four to five properties on 0.55 acres of land. The properties were purchased by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) in November 2021 as part of a larger $9.5 million real estate deal that formed the demolition and redevelopment zone for the failed, $100 million plus Pascalis project, the latter of which also involved the Aiken Chamber of Commerce and developer and property-broker Weldon Wyatt.
The AMDC was dissolved by City Council on May 8th, meaning the properties will soon be conveyed by default to the city.
Specifically, the properties involved are:
The Holley House Motel, adjacent to the Hotel Aiken, which is inhabited only by a City of Aiken Public Safety fire cadet acting as a part-time monitor of vacant Pascalis project properties
The popular Taj Aiken restaurant that serves an authentic Indian cuisine.
The McGhee Building, consisting of the historic CC Johnson Drug Store, which as been vacant since 2018, and was previously occupied by the 21st Century by two popular venues—Pat’s Restaurant followed by Playoffs Bar and Grille. The building is currently only inhabited by Security Finance, as two other businesses—a Nationwide Insurance agent and On-Board Realty. The latter obtained a sole-source, no-bid property management contract from the AMDC in December 2021.
Warneke Cleaners, the oldest active business in downtown Aiken occupying a building constructed in 1935.
The formerly AMDC owned Pascalis properties omitted from the lab facility plan are:
The Beckman Building at 106 Laurens St, SW, which consists of Ginger Bee clothing store, Vampire Penguin dessert destination, and Cosmetics (formerly Beyond Bijou).
The Hotel Aiken, which as been vacant since 2018. A Request for Proposals is reportedly being prepared that will determine its future.
Newberry Hall
Footnote (5) The Aiken Corporation presently has a 99-year “Ground Lease”with the City of Aiken for the 20,000 square foot Amentum office building on Newberry Street. Because of the length of the lease, Aiken Corporation appears as the “owner” in county records and pays property taxes on the building—$29,805 for 2022–but not on the actual property.
The monthly rent paid to Aiken Corp by Amentum is $20,500, or $1 per square foot, and $246,000 per year.
If the same rate were charged for the 45,000 square foot SRNL building, the monthly rent would be $45,000, and annual rental income would be $540,000.
The ground lease for the Newberry Street office building required twenty years of rent paid by Aiken Corp to the City of Aiken to pay off a $3.5 million loan from the city to build the facility.
While the loan also helped finance construction of the adjacent, City-owned adjacent Performing Arts Center, most of that cost was covered by a major fundraising effort by the Aiken Community Theatre.
In the lab scenario, Aiken Corp may not have rental payments to the city. The SRNL property will be owned by the City of Aiken due to the $20 million in plutonium settlement funding, so no loans will be involved unless the project goes over budget. In the absence of the latter event, all rental revenues for the nonprofit Aiken Corp will be profits.
In addition, the City of Aiken has committed to $250,000 in annual maintenance and staffing contests for the SRNL facility, further cutting costs for Aiken Corporation.
December 9, 2022. AMDC Chairman Keith Wood and Chris Verenes resigned in protest due to the failure of City Council to meet with them regarding the causes of the Project Pascalis failure.
“Potential purchase of real property located in downtown Aiken.”
“A proposed contractual arrangement to lease property in downtown Aiken.
In regard to the latter topic, City Council was discussing, and probably negotiating for, rental of property owned by the AMDC and not the city.
Mayor Rick Osbon recused himself because the “discussion might involve one of his direct competitors.” (Warneke Cleaners is the competitor, and the property it leases is part of the SNRL project).
Attendees included Chamber of Commerce President and AMDC commissioner David Jameson, attorneys Daniel Plyler and Gary Smith, Tim O’Briant, Buzz Rich, SRNL Director Dr. Vahid Majidi, and SRNL Assistant Director Sharon Marra.
December 14, 2022. David Jameson resigned from the AMDC, citing South Carolina’s simple Community Development Law as the root cause of the Pascalis project failure.
January 9, 2023: City Council held another closed-door Executive Session involving the same property purchase and lease arrangements at the December 12, 2022, Executive Session. Absent from list of attendees is SRNL’s leadership and Buzz Rich.
The same day, at the regular City Council meeting, Council “continued” a motion to establish itself as the governing body of the AMDC.
January 17, 2023. Despite the expressed wishes of all but two citizens to dissolve the AMDC, City Council unanimously voted to appoint itself as governing body of the AMDC; in order to transfer AMDC properties and assets to the City of Aiken.
January 25, 2023: The SRNL lab project is announced at the “State of the City” jamboree. With Mayor Osbon continuing to recuse himself, Mayor Pro-Tem Ed Woltz described the project in identical terms as the December 9th Aiken Corporation/MPS agreement, and stated: “This is not a done deal.” (Cou
SRNL Director Majidi also addressed the crowd and assured them that no chemical or radiological operations would take place; but also described the facility as a “nonproliferation training center.” According to the SRNL website, this aspect of its mission involves U.S. intelligence agencies. (His transcribed comments are in footnote 2 here.)
January 28, 2023: The City of Aiken announced it would hold a public forum. No mention of the Aiken Corporation was in the announcement.
February 6, 2023: The “City of Aiken Public Input Session” was held at the African American center. Aiken Corporation CEO Buzz Rich opened the session and described it as “focus meeting.” MPS “Principal” K.J. Jacobs moderated the meeting, which he later described as a “listening session.” No mention was made of the existing agreement between Aiken Corporation and MPS.
Present in the audience, but not taking part in the discussion or answering questions, was the SRNL leadership. SRNL has yet to engage with concerned citizens in a public forum, and has been absent from discussions involving the parking garage proposed as a key part of the lab project.
The initial cost estimate of the parking garage, euphemistically referred to by city officials as a “structured parking solution,” is estimated to be $7 million. Two identified sources of funding are hospitality tax funds and plutonium settlement funds from the city’s $25 million share of the plutonium settlement allocated for “Downtown and Northside Redevelopment.”
The garage was not a part of the February 6th discussion.
In addition to the statements mentioned in the body of this article, Mr. Jacobs also provided an email address for comments and promised to establish a website to chronicle “appropriate” comments. The latter is also a requirement in the March 13th contract. The email addressed failed to work for five days, and the website has yet to appear.
February 8, 2023: The Aiken Corporation approved two items:
a. As reported in The Agenda Setting Aiken Corporation, signed an agreement with the City of Aiken to share in the cost of hiring McMillan, Pazdan & Smith Architecture.”
b. The hiring of attorney Tracy Green at a fee of $400 per hour to “look at the current by-laws, Freedom of Information Act issues, and other legal matters.” Other legal matters includes negotiating leases with “third parties” such as SNRL. (The by-laws were updated and approved in May 2023).
City Council members Lessie Price and Gail Diggs were listed as present in the attendee list, acting as “ex-officio” voting members of the Aiken Corporation.
March 7, 2023: The Design Review Board (DRB) held a public “work session” to discuss the design of a ~$7 million parking garage, termed a “structured parking solution,” proposed to accommodate the influx of lab employees. During the pre-decisional meeting citizen comments were prohibited—reducing them to spectators while developers and city officials were participants.
March 8, 2023: The Aiken Corporation approved a motion to “to accept the proposed Professional Services Agreement with the City of Aiken.” City Councilwoman Lessie Price was listed as an attendee.
March 13, 2023. Aiken City Council convened as the governing body of the AMDC. After the issue arose of potential conflicts of interest due to the status of the two Council members on the Aiken Corporation Executive Committee, Council as AMDC tabled the motion to transfer AMDC properties and assets to the City of Aiken. A decision was made instead for a Council public hearing to dissolve the AMDC as a means to transfer the properties and assets—-since dissolution would automatically trigger the transfer.
Later, during its regular meeting, Aiken City Council approved the $250,000, no-bid professional services agreement with the Aiken Corporation; which was deemed “The Developer” in the contract. As already stated, the December 9, 2022 Aiken Corporation agreement with MPS was incorporated into the contract.
Aiken City Council approved a contract for pre-development work on property the City of Aiken did not own, and which only controlled via its dual-role existence on the AMDC.
March 27, 2023. Aiken City Council approved, on First Reading, the dissolution of the AMDC. Both Councilman Ed Woltz and Mayor Rick Osbon recused themselves from the discussion—due to Woltz’s ownership of land adjacent to AMDC properties, and Osbon’s “friendly competitor” Warneke Cleaners occupying part of the lab project property.
After the issue of a potential conflict of interest involving that status of the two Council members on the Board of the Aiken Corporation, the two committed to resigning from the Board. Subsequently the motion passed unanimously on the First Reading.
March 28, 2023: Councilmembers Lessie Price and Gail Diggs resigned from the Board of the Aiken Corporation.
April 10, 2023. Aiken City Council deferred the Second Reading of the vote to dissolve the AMDC, with City Attorney Gary Smith stating he would request an informal opinion on the ethics issues regarding the
April 13, 2023. Smith submitted his request, and added a request pertaining to Ed Woltz and Rick Osbon.
April 27, 2023. The staff of the Ethics Commission issued its informal opinion, stating that no member of Council had to recuse themselves from the vote to dissolve the AMDC.
In regard to the Council members of Aiken Corporation’s board, the informal opinion cited formal opinions of the Commission from 2000 and 2001 that exempted elected officials from conflict of interest laws if they serve as members of Boards of organizations which were created by, and exist at the discretion of, the elected officials’ governing body. In the absence of this exemption, the March 28th resignations would apply to any future votes.
In regard to Mayor Osbon and Councilman Woltz, the staff’s informal opinion cited the lack of financial gain from dissolving the AMDC because vote to dissolve was not a direct vote to transfer AMDC properties and assets.
Meanwhile, little discussion of the lab project has occurred. It might be held up by the failure of Council to transfer the properties to city control, and/or the identified closed-door meetings with “key stakeholders” is ongoing.
Meanwhile, the date for the draft “feasibility study” schedule is now two weeks overdue. No website is up and running to share citizen comments.
Some City of Aiken decisions are first made by the Aiken Corporation before formal approval by City Council. Most recently, a $250,000 no-bid contract was awarded to the Aiken Corporation by Aiken City Council three months after the Aiken Corporation hired its own contractor to pursue the downtown Savannah River National Laboratory project.
In addition, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh committed to paying for sewer and water infrastructure for a downtownhousing development ten months before it was presented to City Council; and agreed to give away the right-of-way on a portion of Lancaster Street to the Aiken Corporation, without formal Council approval.
(Update: Council members Lessie Price and Gail Diggs did resign from Aiken Corporation at the end of March, 2023; leaving no representation from the City on the Aiken Corporation Board of Directors.)
by Don Moniak
April 7, 2023
With the exception of Aiken City Council members Lessie Price and Gail Diggs, who recently expressed their intentions to resign from the Aiken Corporation Board of Directors, the Aiken Corporation Board has no elected officials. Unlike the soon to be defunct Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), the Aiken Corporation is not a distinct, incorporated, separate body politic authorized to conduct any munipical policy or decision-making. Yet it does.
On March 8, 2023, The Aiken Corporation Executive Committee made two decisions affecting its downtown Aiken interests, which now intersect even more closely with the City’s downtown property interests. According to the meeting minutes of the City of Aiken’s preferred non-profit, charitable organization:
1. “Motion was made by Ms. Martha Lockhart and seconded by Mr. Norman Dunagan to appoint a seven -member committee to oversee Aiken Corporation/LED’s role in their downtown development projects. Motion unanimously approved.”
2. After a one hour Executive Session, a “motion was made by Mr. Pat Cunning and seconded by Mr. Sam Erb to accept the proposed Professional Services Agreement with the City of Aiken.” The agreement names the Aiken Corporation as “The Developer” for the pre-development phase of the proposed Savannah River National Laboratory (SNRL) downtown off-site office complex ( presently being referred to as Project Labscalis).
The seven-member downtown sub-committee is composed of Chamber of Commerce President David Jameson, Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee member Charlie Hartz, City of Aiken Planning Commissioner Sam Erb, Pat Cunning, Karen Daly, Aiken Corporation Chair Arthur “Buzz” Rich, and Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee Chair Jason Rabun; who is also the Vice-Chairman of the City of Aiken Planning Commission.
Listed as an attendee, via phone, at the meeting was City Councilwoman Lessie Price. There is no record of her recusal from the vote to accept the proposed Professional Services Agreement with the City of Aiken. One month prior, at the Aiken Corporations’ February 8th Executive meeting, Price and fellow Councilwoman Gail Diggs were present for a vote to “sign an agreement with the City of Aiken to share in the cost of hiring McMillan, Pazdan & Smith Architecture” for the Labscalis project. Aiken Corporation secretly hired the firm in December 2022.
Listed as a guest at the February 8th meeting was Linda Johnson, President of the Historic Aiken Foundation (HAF), who endorsed the SNRL project shortly after the city announced its plans. HAF Board Member Luis Rinaldini, who is also a plaintiff in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit against Project Pascalis has also stated he “is personally a big supporter of the (SRNL) project.”
Council Approval of the Aiken Corporation’s Labscalis Contract
On March 13th, Councilwomen Price and Diggs (who was not at the March 8th meeting) did recuse themselves from the City Council vote to enter into the Professional Services Agreement with the Aiken Corporation—a no-bid contract worth up to $250,000. The contract also mandates the Aiken Corporation hire a lawyer to negotiate leases with third parties like the Savannah River National Laboratory.
The leases will be on at least two properties that are part of the Pascalis properties obtained by the AMDC in November 2021 with tax-payer monies funded by a general obligation bond issuance that has left the City $9.5 million in debt. The Aiken Chamber of Commerce played a critical role in the property deal, writing an earnest money check for $135,000 to take assignment of the $9.5 million Purchase and Sale Agreements between Weldon Wyatt’s WTC Investments, LLC (Agent: Ray Massey) and the Shah and Anderson families.
The March 13th vote passed unanimously, 4-0, as Mayor Rick Osbon also recused himself due to his personal business conflict of interest regarding the presence of Warneke Cleaners on soon to be city-owned property.
The contract now allows an organization dominated by Chamber of Commerce members to control property which the Chamber played an instrumental role in procuring on behalf of the AMDC and the City of Aiken. No Chamber members recused themselves from the February 8th or March 8th Aiken Corporation votes—unlike former AMDC commissioner David Jameson who recused himself on the November 9, 2021 AMDC vote to purchase the properties. (1)
This pattern is the reverse of past decisions by Council members. On August 5, 2020, Ms. Price and fellow councilmembers Ed Girardeau and Ed Woltz abstained from an Aiken Municipal Development Commission vote to allow “the Municipal Development Commission (to) write a letter to City Council asking them to take the Aiken Hotel off the Aiken Historic Register and address the condition of the Aiken Hotel and its renovation.”
After the three City Council members decided to abstain or recuse from AMDC votes that might come before City Council, the ordinance defining the AMDC’s membership requirements was changed to remove Council members from the commission.
City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh and City Councilwoman Kay Brohl also attended the March 8th meeting. In his supporting memorandum on the March 13th Council vote, Mr. Bedenbaugh omitted the fact that the Aiken Corporation had already voted to accept the contract. During discussion of the agenda item, Ms. Brohl did not acknowledge her presence at March 8th meeting.
Aiken Corporation Decides, City Council Follows
The $250,000, no-bid, Aiken Corporation contract with the City fits a pattern, wherein some City of Aiken decisions are first made at Aiken Corporation meetings, and later presented to City Council for approval. Two examples in the past two years include a property deal on Lancaster Street and the South Company development on Union Street known as Union Street Station.
Lancaster Street Right of Way Proposed Giveaway
At the Aiken Corporation’s March 9, 2022, meeting, City Manager Bedenbaugh brought up an item of new business, the transfer of property on Lancaster Street to the Aiken Corporation—once the City obtained the property from the SC Department of Transportation (SCDOT):
“Mr. Bedenbaugh reported that the SCDOT plans to transfer the right- of-way of Lancaster Street between Barnwell Avenue and Edgefield Avenue to the City of Aiken. Once it is transferred, the City will deed the property to the Aiken Corporation for potential development. Chairman Rich reported that he believes the property is potentially large enough to build five or more residences and that the Corporation has already been contacted by a potential developer to either buy or develop the property.”
“Chairman Rich reported that the City is still waiting on SCDOT to turn over the property to them. Once that happens, the City will donate to Aiken Corporation. Based on the layout of the property, approximately 10 houses could be built. Aiken Corporation needs to decide on what to do with the property, whether to build on it or sell it.”
“Mr. Stuart Bedenbaugh reported that he has the paperwork from DOT stating that the property has been transferred to the City and he will include on the City Council’s July agenda to transfer the strip of land on Lancaster to the Aiken Corp.”
In August 2022 the deed was reported to be enroute to the City, but no updates on the Lancaster Street giveaway have occurred since. The Aiken County land database does not show any change in property ownership on that block. (2) The impact of ~3,000 citizen signatures on the Do It Right! Alliance legal petition to prohibit a similar property giveaway on Newberry Street on the stalled Lancaster Street process is unknown.
The corner of Barnwell Avenue and Lancaster Street showing the Right of Way in question. (Photo by Don Moniak)
The Union Street Station Housing Development Utilities Subsidy
At the October, 13, 2021, Aiken Corporation meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh committed the city to funding the water and sewer costs for the South Company’s proposed Union Street Station development on Union Street adjacent to Gyles Park— for which the Aiken Corporation had been offering assistance since January of 2021. (3) The minutes read:
“Mr. Cunning asked if the City committed to providing water and sewer to the properties. City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh stated yes, the City will provide water and sewer.”
The Aiken Corporation continued discussing the development and the development progressed. The “First Reading of an Ordinance Approving A Development Agreement with The South Company” was brought before City Council ten months later, on August 8, 2022. In his supporting memorandum, City Manager Bedenbaugh wrote, in part, about the “Union Street Station” development:
“As part of our staff review of the project, we determined the existing water and sewer lines in the area must be replaced to provide adequate service to the new development and the surrounding neighborhood.”
No mention was made of the Aiken Corporation’s role in the process; and Councilwoman Price and Diggs, who were Aiken Corporation Board members at the time, voted with the rest of Council to unanimously approve the ordinance on both August 8th and again on the Second Reading on August 22, 2022. Councilwoman Price actually made the motion on August 22, which was seconded by Councilwoman Diggs.
One notable portion of the agreement (4) to provide the South Company up to $169,749 in taxpayer funds to provide water and sewer for six single-family housing units is:
“ The Developer shall promptly and fully comply with all regulations and ordinances of the City applicable to the Project to include landscaping and signage ordinances with the written exception of any variances agreed to and approved by the City. “
On December 21, 2022, City of Aiken Stormwater Administrator Samantha Pollack issued a cease and desist order to Ed Dudley of Union Street Station due to the lack of a stormwater permit. The order read:
“This stop work order is being served based on a site visit conducted on December 21, 2022 in which unauthorized grading has been observed, no sediment and erosion controls are in place, and no NOI has been submitted to the City of Aiken.”
At the next Aiken Corporation meeting, the incident was discussed, and the minutes read:
“Chairman Rich reported that he sent an email to Mr. South’s attorney, Morris Rudnick, stating that he would rather discuss matters with him instead of Mr. South. He sent Mr. Rudnick a list of items that need to be completed. There is a cease and desist order sign on the door of the house on Union Street. It was suggested to leave the project on hold until the items are addressed on the list.”
The cease and desist order from City of Aiken officials has not been raised during any meetings of the Aiken City Council that approved a $169,749 subsidy to a downtown developer.
Union Street Station housing development on December 21, 2022. Photo in City of Aiken Cease and Desist Order
Footnotes:
(1) The meeting minutes for the November 9, 2021 AMDC meeting include the following statements regarding the AMDC resolution to “accept assignment of options to purchase real property from the Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce in connection with Project Pascalis.”
AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant stated: “The Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce and their Executive Committee stepped in and agreed to hold those options and make available the sum of $135,000 to pay the earnest money on the contract. Today this resolution will repay the Chamber of Commerce for their advance for the options to purchase the property.”
“The motion was approved by the Commission, with Mr. Verenes and Mr. Jameson abstaining from participating in the discussion and voting on the resolution.”
(2) The Aiken County property database still shows the Lancaster Street parcel as having no ownership, like SCDOT Right of Ways elsewhere in the City.
The City of Aiken has proposed donating this strip of undeveloped right of way on Lancaster Street, in the City’s Parkway District, to the Aiken Corporation for a housing development—necessitating the removal of most of the trees.
“Chairman Rich made a motion seconded by Sam Erb for the Aiken Corporation to purchase the property from the South’s for the sum of $90,000.00. South would then be given an exclusive option for a 24 month period after the sale to repurchase the property at the sum of $17,500 per lot with the requirement that the lots be purchased in numerical order, 1-6. They would be required to purchase the first lot within four months. South would also be required to finish all land layout as required by the City and to have a final recorded subdivision plat before closing. The motion was unanimously approved with the abstention of Tim Simmons. “
According to the Aiken County property data base, the property is still owned by