Category Archives: Money Trails

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.

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.

Three Missing Pages

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 primary source of downtown lab project funding is a $20 million allocation from the State of South Carolina’s plutonium storage settlement with the federal government. As reported in “Offsite Infrastructure,” the facility had been in the discussion phase for more than two years. Intensive, secretive discussions began in January 2022 between SRNL, USC-Aiken, and the AMDC. 

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.

Footnote (6) The full timeline of known events since the cancellation of Project Pascalis on September 29, 2022 is as follows: 

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.  

December 12, 2022. Aiken City Council met in closed-door Executive Session to discuss: 

  • “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, 2022David 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.

The Agenda-Setting Aiken Corporation

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 downtown housing 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.”

Two months later, the minutes read: 

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.” 

The July 2022  minutes read: 

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.



(3) On August 11, 2021, the minutes show the following vote taken:

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

(4) The Agreement with the South Company is on Pages 71-81 of the August 22, 2022 City Council Agenda Packet.


Project Labscalis* Annual Operating Costs

$271,250 of “Indefinite” Local Annual Subsidies for Federal Contractor

by Don Moniak
March 28, 2023

According to a recently obtained “Savannah River Litigation Settlement Fund Request Form,” the City of Aiken’s estimated annual operating costs for the proposed Savannah River National Laboratory’s (SRNL) “Workforce Development” office complex in downtown Aiken is at least $271,250.00; or $2.71 million over the first ten years. This annual subsidy for the lab facility, which is expected to require allocations of hospitality tax revenues, was omitted by city officials during the announcement of the project and during subsequent public discussions. 

The request form contains the $20 million dollar request to South Carolina’s Executive Budget Office for “SRS/National Laboratory Off-Site Infrastructure.” The money was allocated to any public body in Aiken County by the General Assembly for the purpose of such a facility, but still requires formal project approval through the budget office and the legislative Joint Bond Review Committee (JBRC). 

Even though consultants and city council members have stated the decision is “not a done deal,” the funding request confirms the City’s intent to build a 45,000 square foot office complex for SRNL on a half-acre of property currently under the control of the nearly defunct Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC).

According to SRNL director Dr. Vahid Majidi, the downtown lab office complex is intended to house unspecified computational work, nonproliferation (1) training programs, and human resources: 

SRNL employees will perform some of our computational modeling and simulation. We’ll  have a team of employees working with the university to increase our engagement with faculty postdoctoral and graduate students interns and minority serving institution programs. Some of our employees will work on non-proliferation training programs while other will work on Workforce Development and HR functions moreover as a collaboration Hub.” (2)

As reported in There Must Be a Joke in There Somewhere, Dr. Majidi stressed that the downtown facility will not involve “chemical hoods or hazardous materials,” but did not elaborate on the depth of often-classified and secretive non-proliferation work that will occur at the facility. 

The Justification 

According to the “Project Description and Justification,” the downtown location was chosen “because of the walking distance proximity to cultural amenities, dining, retail stores, and lodging.”  The facility will be a “shared event/exhibition space and office space” where employees of SRNL’s contractor Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA) will work on “critical projects for SRNL as part of the university consortium.” (3)

A justification for the facility not previously disclosed is “hosting and training non-U.S. citizens, which is currently difficult to do within the highly-secured areas at the Savannah River Site.”

This justification is contradicted by the SRNL lease at the the Advanced Research Center (ARC) off-site facility in Aiken County’s  422-acre Caroll H. Warner Savannah River Research Campus.  SRNL is also tasked by DOE with operating a second off-site facility, the 60,000 square foot Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative at USC-Aiken that is presently under construction and is expected to cost $50 million.

The project description and justification for the SRNL project.

Costs 

The total $20 million in upfront project costs do not include land acquisition, the $7.0 million estimated cost of a parking garage for the facility, or the $250,000 “predevelopment” contract with the Aiken Corporation that is part planning, part marketing.(4) There is, however, $2.7 million in “unknowns” in the “contingency” column. The remainder of the $17.3 million in known estimated costs are: 

  • $2.0 million for architectural and engineering professional services
  • $1.5 million for site development, for which only “demolition” is the description.
  • $13.8 million for new construction of the 45,000 square foot, T-shaped, three-story facility 

The annual operating costs, all of which are described as recurring “indefinitely,” are broken down into three categories: 

  • Utilities: $157,000, at a cost of $3.50 per square foot. 
  • Maintenance and Repairs: $33,750, at a cost of $0.75 per square foot
  • Salaries, Benefits, Payroll Taxes: $80,000 for “maintenance and facility management staff”

A note on the annual operating costs states: 

SRNL (BSRA) has agreed to negotiate an operating agreement under which the tenant will be responsible for proportional utility, maintenance, tax and insurance obligations for the portion of the facility exclusively occupied by the tenant. The remaining proportional expense for the remaining shared public areas of the facility will be the responsibility of the City of Aiken funded by a variety of existing revenue streams to include hospitality taxes.” 

The Cost estimates for the downtown lab office complex project.



Left out of the request form is the fact that the City of Aiken intends to maintain “control” of the facility by leasing it to its long time private partner, the quasi-governmental, not for profit Aiken Corporation. 

On March 13, 2023, four members of Aiken City Council approved a no-bid, $250,000 contract (4) with the Aiken Corporation to pay the architectural firm of McMillan Pazden and Smith (MPS) to conduct “pre-development” work on the project ranging from “public engagement,” “stakeholder interviews,” site evaluation including its “historical nature,” learning the city’s zoning laws and comprehensive plan, and “assisting the planning team in developing guiding principles for the overall form and massing of any proposed buildings as well as their impact on the pedestrian experience.” The contract also included backdating prior commitments between the Aiken Corporation and MPS. (5)

Another part of the contract requires the Aiken Corporation to hire a lawyer “ to provide legal services” including “drafting a lease between Developer and Third Parties.”

Three Council members properly recused themselves from the vote to comply with state ethics laws: 

  • Councilwomen Gail Diggs and Lessie Price, who are voting members of the Aiken Corporation; but who, on March 27th, expressed their intention to resign from the Aiken Corporation Board of Directors.
  • Mayor Rick Osbon, an owner of Osbon Cleaners whose only downtown and North Aiken competitor is Warneke Cleaners, whose existing location will be demolished and relocated. 

Status of the Funding Request. 

The $20 million request was sent to Aiken County Administrator Clay Killian prior to January 27, 2023.  Mr. Killian did not sign and approve the request, and forward it to the state’s Executive Budget Office, until March 14, 2023–too late for submission for the Joint Bond Review Committee’s (JBRC) March 22, 2023 meeting agenda. The $20 million line item remains unallocated until the request is approved by the JBRC.

The JBRC approved  $27.1 million of plutonium funds for three projects in January 2023, and were asked to reconsider one request. No reply has been forthcoming.

From JBRC March 22, 2023 Agenda. The $20.5 million awaiting disbursement are the $20 million for the SRNL offsite facility, and the Children’s Place facility off Beaufort Avenue.

  • * Editor’s Note: Project “Labscalis” is a hybrid term used to refer to the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) Workforce Development Center being proposed on properties obtained by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) as the core area for the demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis. Thus, Labscalis.
    (May 18, 2023.)

    Footnotes: 

(1) A key element of SRNL’s mission is nuclear nonproliferation, an intelligence program and very broad field that ranges from treaty verification to detecting and recovering lost or stolen nuclear materials. SRNL describes the program area as, “supporting the intelligence needs of the United States.  SRNL employs its unique expertise in nuclear technologies, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) signatures, and regional security analysis to examine foreign programs in support of DOE, the Intelligence community, and other U.S. government organizations.  As part of the Interagency Treaty Process, SRNL provides support to NNSA and other government organizations for their participation in the process that develops U.S. positions on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, as well as other agreements required for nuclear trade with other countries.” 

This work is primarily under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), with some contract work with other federal agencies. The NNSA is also responsible for producing nuclear weapons for deployment by the Department of Defense; and insuring the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. 

(2) From Dr. Majidi’s comments at the January 23, 2023 “State of the City” jamboree. The full comments, taken from the You Tube transcript and edited for clarity were: 

“Well good good evening everybody just want to remind you it’s a Kinder year. So we’re going to start on that note. Five years ago ago I moved to Aiken to become the director of Savannah River National Laboratory. I came here because the laboratory had a reputation for being able to consistently get the work done but also because I knew it had the largest potential for growth amongst all National Laboratories. 

Just three years ago the Department of Energy acted on their long-standing vision of an enduring National Laboratory in South Carolina and created an opportunity for the lab to be operated as an independent National Laboratory. The purpose of a National  Laboratory is to address large complex research and development challenges with a multi-disciplinary approach. Savannah River National Laboratory is the newest National Laboratory under the Department of Energy.  Nationwide there are 17 DOE National Labs and SRNL is the only lab in Carolina serving the Southeast region of the United States along with our good partners at Oakridge National Laboratories. 

[Mayor Osbon adjusts his microphone] 

One disadvantage of being a short laboratory director is that somebody else has to adjust your microphone for you. 

Today our laboratory is operated by a vital cooperatorion with University of South Carolina Clemson, South Carolina State, University of Georgia, and Georgia Institute of Technology. 

Our mission is ensuring America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative Science and Technology Solutions. We create high quality jobs in central Savannah River area, and our enduring economic engine attracting not only professionals from all across the country but also Advanced science and technology-based companies to CSRA. 

SRNL achieved its Mission by attracting motivating and training a diverse and highly skilled Workforce to execute on complex DOE programs. This new facility in Aitkin allows a laboratory to have a more direct presence in the community we serve with the goal of developing a pipeline of new Talent as well as developing the existing employee base. It will also complement our brand new Advanced manufacturing collaborative as USC Aiken, creating a hub for partnership with industry and Academia. 

What else are we planning to put in this building? 

“I should emphasize that this Savannah River National Laboratory building is being designed for only computational administrative work we don’t have any chemicals hoods or hazardous material in this facility uh….” 

[very light applause and few laughs from the crowd]

“There is a joke there somewhere right?” 

“SRNL employees will perform some of our computational modeling and simulation. We’ll  have a team of employees working with the university to increase our engagement with faculty postdoctoral and graduate students interns and minority serving institution programs. Some of our employees will work on non-proliferation training programs while other will work on Workforce Development and HR functions moreover as a collaboration Hub.” 

This facility will host faculty and students and allows for scientific Gatherings including technical discussions poster presentations and other student programs. We will have the Next Generation classroom space for training sessions and will support remote learning environments. It will host science and technology engineering and math camps for Teacher development workshops but a specific focus on K-12. 

University of South Carolina Aiken will have an enduring presence through their Workforce Development program. I’m very much looking forward to expanding our activities with USCA on both, in this new facility and advanced manufacturing collaborative building [Applause]

But most  importantly this building is the community face of the laboratory. A portion of this  building will be open to the public to Foster Community awareness of the work we do at SRNL, and its benefits to the society. The lobby will display our most recent scientific work, and this facility is the first stop for all new laboratory employee upon their entry for onboarding and training. 

It takes a great Community to make something like this possible I want to make sure that I take a moment to recognize Governor Henry mcmaster’s hard work to identify this need and to allocate a 20 million dollar for this facility. We’re grateful for Governor McMaster’s  enduring support. Moreover, we’re grateful to the South Carolina state legislatures for their wisdom to recognize the need and the necessity for this building to help us bring the laboratory to the community. I also want to recognize the city of Aiken, the Mayor’s office,  and the city council members for their steadfast supports to bring this project to reality. I want to recognize the Department of Energy for selecting the Battelle Savannah River Alliance as the management and operating company for the laboratory, to create an enduring capability in South Carolina. this building along with the advanced manufacturing collaborative brings the Savannah River National Laboratory into the Heart of the Aging Community we plan to be a productive citizens and hope to have a broader impact to our community.”

(3) As reported in “Offsite Infrastructure,” SRNL’s most vital missions involve nuclear weapons work and risk reduction from Cold War era nuclear weaponry materials production—most notably plutonium production. 

(4) The resolution in support of the Aiken Corporation contract with the City of Aiken; and the MPS letter to the Aiken Corporation



(5) The partial contract, which does not contain backdated agreements between MPS and Aiken Corporation, is available on pages 223-234 in the March 13, 2023 meeting agenda packet.

The minutes from that meeting are available on pages 19-23 of the March 27, 2023 meeting agenda packet.