Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chair Chris Verenes Resign
by Don Moniak
December 9, 2022
Keith Wood and Chris Verenes are original members of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), having attended every public meeting since May 20, 2020. Wood was elected Chairman in September 2020, and Verenes was the first and only Vice-Chair. Together with AMDC Treasurer J. David Jameson, they formed the commission’s Executive Committee, a three-person panel that, while ill-defined, functioned as a pre-decisional deliberative body addressing commission business. Along with AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant, they orchestrated much of the effort to pursue the $100 million plus downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment plan known as Project Pascalis.
Chairman Wood was one of two people authorized to sign AMDC checks and negotiate with developers; the other being recently removed AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant. In July 2021, he authored a key letter to City Council requesting $10 million in funding for AMDC purchases of “Parkway District” properties.
On September 29, 2022, following approval of a motion to cancel downtown Aiken’s Redevelopment Plan One and the Purchase and Sale Agreement for AMDC-owned downtown properties between the AMDC and RPM Development Partners, Wood and Verenes issued statements blaming unnamed city staff for misleading the commission during the Project Pascalis procurement process.
Both Wood and Verenes demanded that the truth be made public as to why the project effectively ceased on June 23, 2022; twelve days before a major lawsuit was filed seeking an injunction of the project. Since the Blake et al vs City of Aiken lawsuit was filed, fourteen lawyers from eight different law firms have represented the various city officials and public bodies named as defendants in the suit. As previously reported in Cancelled, Stopped, On Hold, Terminated, or Ongoing, the abundance of legal counsel has led to confusion over the actual project status.
Today, Wood and Verenes emailed resignation letters (1) to Aiken City Council and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. The resignation was confirmed by an unnamed source.
Both commissioners expressed alarm at City Council’s refusal to publicly reveal the reasons for the failure of Project Pascalis, and voiced strong protests against signing a “Joint Defense Agreement” (JDA) that would inhibit “open, frank, and complete information.”
In his resignation letter, Wood also appeared to disagree with the AMDC’s attorney in regard to the JDA drafted prior to a joint, closed-door Executive Session with City Council on November 21, 2022:
“David Morrison, AMDC attorney, working in tandem with Daniel Plyler, City Attorney, prepared and forwarded a Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) for all participants of the meeting to sign prior to our meeting. In our view, the JDA restricts any Commissioner’s ability to disclose information that could be shared with you. Any meeting restricting open, frank, and complete information would be a disservice to City Council, AMDC, and the citizens of Aiken.”
Chris Verenes wrote, in regard to the same issues:
“It is important to note that Mayor Pro Tem Ed Woltz and Councilwoman Lessie Price relayed to me that they were in favor of meeting with no preconditions, restrictions, or legal agreements. The Chairman and I were concerned that the joint defense agreement might limit what we would be allowed to say in a public forum. We determined that we will not agree to any restrictions being placed on us as to what could be disclosed to the public.”
Verenes also referenced a joint email (2) from both he and Chairman Wood, in which they wrote:
“Our recommendation is to have discussions without any predetermined restrictions which may impede the truth. This is based on our belief that the public expects and deserves the highest standard of ethical conduct and transparency from all appointed and elected officials.”
The resignations leave only four AMDC commissioners—David Jameson, Philip Merry, Marty Gillam, and Douglas Slaughter. Since he is in violation of city attendance rules for appointed officials, having missed four of six regular meetings this year, Reverend Slaughter will be automatically removed as a commissioner on January 1, 2023. Even with Slaughter, the AMDC does not have a quorum of members and cannot make decisions or take actions.
The AMDC has not met in a regular public meeting in six months, having cancelled every regularly scheduled meeting since the July 5, 2022 lawsuit. The commission has also refused to allow public inspection of its records, with former Executive Director O’Briant stating in early October that information will be withheld until a judge orders otherwise.
Parking Lots as Open Space and Converting Residential to Commercial
The 100-acre Village at Woodside development has been classified by the City of Aiken as “Planned Residential” zoning since 2005. From 2001-2005 the development was part of the larger Woodside Plantation, which is also zoned Planned Residential. In its most recent proposed Concept Design amendment, Village at Woodside’s developer continues classifying paved parking lots as non-commercial space, and claims a proposed shopping center with 339 parking spaces and fronting Silver Bluff Road is primarily for its residents. The City of Aiken’s Planning Department and Planning Commission have accepted these proposals, and Aiken City Council is poised to make the final approval. (Update: City Council unanimously approved the development on November 28, 2022).
“Planned Residential”
Planned residential is a special use district within the City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance, described as a flexible and creative class of zoning:
“The Planned Residential (PR) District permits greater flexibility and more creative and imaginative design for the development of residential areas than is generally possible in other residential districts while potentially allowing a limited range of nonresidential uses primarily serving the residents of the PR project. In exchange for there typically being no minimum lot sizes and widths or minimum setbacks, and a variety of housing types, the developer gives City Council control of the details of a proposed project through approval of a concept plan. The District promotes more economical and efficient use of the land, a harmonious variety of housing types, a higher level of amenities, compatibility with surrounding uses, preservation of natural features and open space, and the interconnection of trails and sidewalks.”
Some design standards in the Planned Residential category that are prone to creative manipulation include:
A maximum of five percent of the total area is “permitted to be devoted to uses other than residential and open space, but there is no entitlement to any commercial or institutional use.”
Any commercial development “shall be designed primarily to serve the residents of the Planned Residential project.”
Twenty percent of single family residential areas, and forty percent of multifamily residential, must be devoted to “open space;” and half of this must be improved for recreational use. (1)
The Village at Woodside was separated from Woodside Plantation in 2005, after Woodside land holding company Sidewood Development, LLC transferred more than ninety-three acres of property to Silver Bluff Development Corporation— which subsequently became the developer of record.
Since 2005, Silver Bluff Development has deeded 14.5 acres of its property to two property owner associations, retained 33 acres, and sold the remainder to residents and businesses. One-third of property owner association lands consist of paved parking lots or roads.
Since its inception, area residents have voiced concerns about the scale of commercial development at the Village; and the prospect of the undeveloped stretch of Silver Bluff road devolving into a congested area like Whiskey Road. Some city officials joined with developers to calm concerns by portraying planned commercial development as limited:
“The developers had stated that 69% of the commercial area will be green space and not developed. Approximately 30 acres will be developed in that section.” (Aiken City Manager Roger DeLuc, June 11, 2001 City Council Meeting Minutes)
” The commercial area would be more like 21.4 acres rather than 30 acres” (Aiken Mayor Fred Cavanaugh, June 11, 2001).
Commercial Space Without Parking Lots?
Due to the five percent commercial use rule, The Village at Woodside is allowed by the City to have a total of 229,000 square feet of commercial space, or 5.25 acres. The Village at Woodside has minimized its total commercial space through the loophole of deeding commercial parking lots to the Woodside Village Master Neighborhood Association.
Under state law, “the special valuation of homeowners’ association property shall not result in any homeowners’ association property being valued at a rate less than five hundred dollars an acre.”(2) These lands held by property owner associations are classed as “common areas” by the Aiken County Assessor’s Office. This classification applies whether the property is an open field, a recreational trail or a busy, paved parking lot.
In its most recent Concept Plan amendment, the Village provided a listing of commercial properties in Schedule A (3). All but one property, the maintenance building, involve only the square footage of buildings, which collectively total 189,000 square feet. While Village at Woodside breaks down its commercial space to the square foot, its concept plan fails to break down the 37 acres it claims as “open space.” (4)
However, the three paved parking lots that service businesses are not categorized as commercial space. If these 4.5 acres of parking lots are considered, the total commercial area more than doubles. These parking lots are owned by the Woodside Village Master Neighborhood Association, are categorized by the county as ‘common ground,” and appraised at the standard rate of $500 per acre. The total appraised value of the paved “common areas” is less than $2500. Thus, the POA’s annual tax bill for each parking area is about ten bucks.
Village at Woodside Medical Center parking lot and tax bill.
Aiken County does not categorize these “common area” paved parking lots as improvements; unlike the approach in most commercial developments where pavement is considered an improvement often appraised at a rate of $75,000 to $90,000 per acre. For example, down the road at Center South Shopping Center, the 6.2 acre paved parking area is appraised at close to $580,000; as compared to the less than $2500 total appraisal for Village at Woodside parking lots. In downtown Aiken, the improvement value of a 0.3 acres of pavement in a parking lot owned by R&O Enterprises, LLC (Agent Rick Osbon) is appraised at $25,000.
While the Village at Woodside developer is not unique in exploiting this tax loophole, it is unique in presenting the illusion that commercial parking lots owned by its property association somehow constitute open space within a planned residential development.
This trend will continue if Aiken City Council approves the latest annexation and design change. The newest proposed addition to the commercial total, situated in a 4.6 acre proposed annexation parcel, is also the largest—a 60,000 square foot shopping center composed of a 47,240 square-foot grocery store and seven 1,400 square-foot shops. Again, only the buildings are considered part of the commercial space equation, leaving the large, multi-acre, 339-space parking lot and road system in the default category of open space.
Exhibit A from Village at Woodside Concept Plan AmendmentIn this aerial view of the proposed shopping center, the grey area representing paved parking lots, roads, and truck spur to the loading dock are not considered commercial space by Silver Bluff Development Corporation or the city. From: Aiken City Council Agenda Packet for 11/28/22
The proposal also includes other infringements on the open space concept. Silver Bluff Development has labeled buffer areas along Silver Bluff Road as “open space,” all future, proposed commercial development will require the clearcutting of approximately fourteen acres of currently undeveloped, real open space, and the new shopping center will destroy an existing trail and fragment the interconnection of trails and sidewalks. (5)
The Planned Residential Shopping Center
Village at Woodside has promised its residents its own grocery store since 2005. In every amendment to its concept plan, the grocery store was always listed as 20,000 square feet, and its location was always presumed to be in the Village, not facing Silver Bluff Road. Beginning in 2001, in order to better maintain the rural, residential character of the area, developers also promised no commercial development along and fronting Silver Bluff Road.
Village at Woodside Master Plan Approvals, 2005-2022.
The 20,000 square-foot promise continued through Feburary, 2022. Seven months later Silver Bluff Development announced that it had attracted a grocer who would build a 48,000 square foot “speciality grocery store” with seven adjacent shops of 1400 square feet each, a three-fold increase over what was promised and approved for seventeen years.
Even though the planned shopping center with a large grocery store fronts Silver Bluff Road, is one-third of a mile from the nearest resident, a half-mile from the center of the residential development, and contains more parking spaces (339) than allowable residential units (318), Silver Bluff Development and Peach Properties insist that its shopping center will primarily serve residents of Village at Woodside, and thereby meet the requirements of Planned Residential zoning.
It should be clear that the developers are exploiting the Planned Residential category to avoid the visual of converting an area zoned residential for decades by Aiken County into a commercial shopping center. This distortion of the zoning concept is further seen in updated drawings in the Design Concept plan which exclude adjacent neighborhoods across the road and behind the proposed shopping center, and present the Village at Woodside as an isolated, stand-alone community.
The latest rendition of the Village at Woodside. Red indicates future development. The tanned area is the primary residential community.
“OPEN SPACE: Outdoor or unenclosed area on the ground accessible for outdoor living, recreation, pedestrian access, or landscaping. Open space shall not include parking areas, driveways, deck or terrace areas, utility or service areas, or any space with a dimension of less than six feet in any direction.”
Section 4.2.6(G)(5) of the The City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance sets the following conditions for Open Space in Planned Residential areas:
“a. All open space areas shall be held in common for the enjoyment of the residents of the development or dedicated to the City for the use and enjoyment of the general public.
i. A minimum of one-half of the required open space area shall be improved for passive and active recreational use.
ii. Required open space shall be in addition to any required landscape, buffer, or setback areas required for individual uses with the development.
b. The portion of the project composed predominantly of detached single-family dwelling units must have at least 20 percent open space. The portion of the project composed predominantly of multifamily residential units must have at least 40 percent open space. The portion of the project composed predominantly of nonresidential development must have at least the open space required in the PC District. City Council may vary the standards of this section to allow for creative design. (Ord. 09122011C)
c. Common open space required by these regulations shall be developed in accordance with the following.
i. The amount of open space required shall not include land area devoted to other uses, including buildings, except for recreational structures.
ii. Common open space shall be used for amenity or recreational purposes. The uses proposed for the common open space must be appropriate to the scale and character of the development considering its size, density, expected population, topography, and the number and type of dwellings to be provided.
iii. Common open space is intended to serve as a community amenity, providing focal points for the development (including squares, plazas, or greenways), as well as passive and active recreational space that serves the needs of the residents. Residential development within the PR project is intended to have a close visual relationship to the provided open space.
iv. Common open space must be suitably improved for its intended use, but common open space containing natural features, existing trees, and groundcover worthy of preservation may be left unimproved.
v. The site planning of the PR project shall provide open space which provides for internal connectivity and is useable by the residents. For the purposes of this Section, parcels under 25 feet in width or located without access by residents shall not be counted as open space.
vi. Open space should connect with similar open spaces on adjacent properties in order promote an interconnected network of greenways and trails.
vii. The buildings, structures, and improvements proposed in the common areas shall conserve and enhance the amenities of the common open space.
viii. Proposed development staging shall provide for coordination of the improvement of the common open space and the construction of dwelling units in the PR project.
ix. Legal instruments as provided under the Horizontal Property Act of South Carolina shall govern the permanent retention and maintenance of any common open space not dedicated to the City. A description of such lands shall be recorded with the proper authorities.”
(2) SC 12-43-227 defines state property tax requirements.
Woodside is not alone in exploiting this homeowners association loophole for tax purposes. There are paved parking areas all across Aiken County that are appraised at $500 per acre because they are owned by a not-for-profit property owners assocation; even though the commercial buildings or residential complexes that are served are commercial for-profit.
(4) The Village at Woodside provides detailed accounting of commercial space and residential units, but “open space” is simply identified as “37 acres,” with no subsequent, detailed accounting.
From Village at Woodside Concept Design map. February, 2022.
In the most recent version of the Concept plan, the proposed “Village Inn” hotel is removed from the commercial accounting and added to the residential totals; and the 20,000 square foot grocery store is replaced by the much larger shopping center.
(5) Some open space that is identified on the Concept Design map is the buffer between commercial developments and Silver Bluff Road, as the example below shows.
Future development will require approximately fourteen acres of existing undeveloped, forested land to be clearcut and converted to buildings or parking areas.
Village at Woodside (Blue = Approximate boundary, Areas in Red = Future Development)
The City of Aiken Recreation Commission’s High Absenteeism Rate
Three members of the City of Aiken’s Recreation Commission violated the attendance policy for city boards, commissions, and committees in 2021 by missing more than forty percent of their meetings. Yet, no members were automatically removed, as required by city ordinance. Two of the three voted on February 1, 2022 to dramatically raise city recreation fees, a vote later inappropriately presented in a memorandum to City Council as a legally valid approval of the major fee increases. Without these votes, the meeting would have lacked a quorum, and no vote could have occurred.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Aiken City Council appoints citizen volunteers to three boards, seven commissions, four committees, and the Aiken Housing Authority—which operates as an independent body. According to the Aiken Handbook for Effective Boards, Commissions, and Committees (Handbook), these advisory volunteer bodies are essential for crafting city policies that can have profound effects on the lives of citizens:
“In keeping with Aiken’s philosophy of citizen involvement, the City Council appoints citizens to commissions, committees, and boards to assist it in formulating city policy. The strength and success of the Aiken City Government is to a large degree reflective of the quality of service performed by volunteers to these entities.”
Most volunteer bodies fall under the advisory category, but several have broader powers over the citizenry:
The Design Review Board and Board of Zoning Appeals are “quasi-judicial” bodies similar to administrative courts of law; and their decisions can only be appealed to District Court.
The Planning Commission provides the first round of review and approvals or disapprovals for requests for annexations, developments requiring zoning changes, and city services for developments outside city limits. City Council rarely overrules their recommendations.
The Municipal Development Commission is independently incorporated, but remains almost entirely funded through the City budget; and its resolutions, recommendations, and plans still must be approved by City Council.
Among other duties, the Community Development Committee is legally authorized to approve or disapprove the disbursement of federal housing assistance funds, choose contractors, and rule on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs.
From Aiken Handbook of Effective Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2018.
Rules of Attendance
Chapter Two, Article Four of the city’s municipal code governs the requirements of the various boards, commissions, and committees. The lead requirement, Section 2-141, involves attendance:
“Any appointed member of a board or commission created by an ordinance of the city council who during a calendar year is absent from 40 percent or more of the regular meetings or three or more successive regular meetings of the board or commission shall automatically be removed therefrom and shall not be reinstated to the remainder of his term except by a resolution adopted by the city council.”
According to the Handbook, each volunteer body is assigned a paid city employee as a contact. The function of the contact is similar to that of the City Manager’s role during Council meetings; they are responsible for working with Chairpersons and members to provide leadership and support, prepare and review agenda material, and offer expert advice.
Another primary responsibility of the staff contact is to monitor the attendance policy:
“Reviews the attendance policy with the Board, Commission, and Committee members and ensures that they understand and are following attendance rules by attending at least sixty percent (60%) of all regular and special meetings. Maintains records of attendance and reports to the city manager the need for potential removal of any Board, Commission, or Committee member who is absent three successive regular meetings in a year and/or who is absent a total of forty percent (40%) or more in a year. “
Attendance Problems Receive a Public Airing
At its November 14, 2022 meeting, Aiken City Council debated the merits of reinstating Design Review Board member Josh Stewart; who missed forty percent of all regular meetings in 2021. In 2022 he has missed three of eight meetings, two workshops involving the Hotel Aiken and Beckman Building demolition discussion, and the legally mandated continuing education workshop.
Council eventually tabled the motion to reinstate by a vote of 4-3, but not before City Planning Director Marya Moultrie made a false claim to Council that Stewart had attended every meeting in 2022. Details of the contentious debate were reported in the Sunday, November 20th edition of the Aiken Standard.
Recreation Commission Attendance Problems
According to its city website, the Recreation Commission’s mission is to “serve as a liaison between the city residents and program participants and the Aiken City Council to ensure the development and provision of appropriate, quality recreation facilities, services, and programs.”
Because programs are open to nonresidents of the city, the commission is one of three organizations that allows nonresident volunteers to serve; the other two being the Aviation Commission and the Equine Committee. The group also holds the distinction of having non-voting “youth commissioners,” and in 2021 introduced the concept of “youth influencers.” The commission is currently involved with crafting the proposal to build a multi-million dollar soccer complex at Citizens Park.
A review of Recreation Commission meeting minutes revealed an even deeper attendance problem than the Design Review Board. In 2021, three members of the commission missed fifty percent or more of the meetings (1); and in 2022 two of those members continued to miss more than fifty percent of meetings (2). Although city ordinance mandated the members be removed from their appointed office, no action was taken.
In addition, up to three meetings in 2022 were cancelled due to a lack of a quorum (2), indicating a deeper attendance issue. Overall, the Recreation Commission is plagued by a lack of participation. Even its youth commissioners are absent well over fifty percent of the time.
As reported in Taking $2 From a Child to Play a Game, on February 1, 2022 the Recreation Commission held a special-called meeting that lacked proper public notification. The only agenda item involved a proposal to substantially increase recreation fees. The 5-0 vote to approve the fee increases occurred despite the fact the commission lacks the authority to change fees—it is only authorized to provide advice and recommendations to City Council.
By city ordinance, two of the voting members should have been automatically removed from their positions and ineligible to vote. Even if the vote had only involved a resolution to recommend fee increases, the presence of only three legitimate members and subsequent lack of a legal quorum would still have rendered such a vote invalid.
Troubles with Volunteerism in Aiken
2022 has been a difficult year for Aiken’s volunteer commissions and boards. A lawsuit filed against the demolition and redevelopment effort known as Project Pascalis revealed that three members of the Municipal Development Commission and two members of the Design Review Board were appointed despite not living in the city—a major oversight by City Council. At one point the three person election commission was reduced to a single member.
Now, the issue of overlooked attendance violations has emerged for the Design Review Board, the Recreation Commission, and possibly other committees, commissions, and boards. For example, while not at the forty percent level, Planning Commission Chairman Ryan Reynolds has missed nearly a third of the meetings of the most powerful commission in the city in 2022. Equine Committee member Courtney Conger missed four of seven meetings in 2021, and two of three in 2022; although that committee is deemed ad-hoc.
Aiken City Council has consistently delegated more of its authority to city staff in recent years. For example, as reported in Taking $2 From a A Child to Play a Game, Council discussed delegating the approval of the hanging of banners to city staff. While this sounds innocuous, a single incident of a controversial banner will likely return the issue back to Council approval.
In the case of the Recreation Commission, recreation fees were raised despite the fact it was not authorized to do so, in a meeting that lacked proper notification, and by members who legally should have been removed for attendance policy violations.
______________________
Footnotes
(1) Recreation Commission Minutes for 2021.
Tuesday, January 19, 2021 Aiken, South Carolina Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Sam Radford, Rasheka Gaines, and Alex Meyers, Fellow Lead for America. Absent: Commissioners Melissa Viola, Susan Schifer and John Wallace, and Youth Commissioners Bailey Edwards and Grey Larlee
Tuesday,, March 16, 2021
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, Susan Schifer, and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Sam Radford, Rasheka Gaines, and Breanna Jackson Absent: Commissioners Melissa Viola and John Wallace, and Youth Commissioners Bailey Edwards and Grey Larlee
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice -Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Melissa Viola, John Wallace, and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Rasheka Gaines Absent: Commisoners Susan Schifer and Lori Comshaw; Youth Commissioners Grey Larlee and Bailey Edwards.
Tuesday,August 17,2021
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner,Commissioners SusanSchifer, Lori Comshaw and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Samantha Radford. Absent: Commisoners Melissa Viola and John Wallace
Tuesday, October 19, 2021
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Susan Schifer, Lori Comshaw, John Wallace, and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Samantha Radford & Rasheka Gaines; PRT Influencers Kaia McMullen, Mika Mayo, Kaeleigh Seigler Absent: Commissioner Melissa Viola
RECREATION COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 30, 2021. Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, Ricky Brown, and Melissa Viola (Zoom). Others Present: City Staff Jessica Campbell, Samantha Radford & Rasheka Gaines. Absent: Commissioner John Wallace, Susan Schifer
Summary of Recreation Commission Attendance, 2021. 50% Absentee Rate: Commissioners John Wallace and Susan Schifer. 67% Absentee Rate: Commissioner Melissa Viola.
Member
1/19 (Z)
3/16 (Z)
5/18 (Z)
8/17 (Z)
10/19
11/30
Haislup
P
P
P
P
P
P
Wallace
A
A
P
A
P
A
Comshaw
P
P
A
P
P
P
Schifer
A
P
A
P
P
A
Viola
A
A
P
A
A
P (Z)
Beckner
P
P
P
P
P
P
Brown
P
P
P
P
P
P
P = Present; A = Absent, (Z) = Attended via zoom
(2) Recreation Commission Minutes, Calendar Year 2022.
Tuesday, February 1, 2022 Aiken, South Carolina
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner (Zoom), Commissioners Lori Comshaw, John Wallace, and Melissa Viola (Zoom). Others Present: City Staff Jessica Campbell, Seth Holley, Rasheka Gaines, Alex Myers, and Alison Cribb . Absent: Commissioner, Susan Schifer
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, and John Wallace. Others Present: City Staff – Rasheka Gaines, Austin Rippy, Alex Myers, and Alison Cribb. Absent: Commissioners Susan Schifer and Melissa Viola.
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup(Zoom),Commissioners John Pettigrew,Lori Comshaw, Susan Schifer, and John Wallace. Others Present:City Staff-Rasheka Gaines,Sara Harvey, and Alison Cribb. Absent: CommissionersMelissa Viola.
Summary of 2022 Recreation Commission Attendance 67% Absentee Rate: Susan Schifer and Melissa Viola.
Member
2/1
3/15
5/18
8/16
10/18
11/21
Haislup
P
P
C
P
NQ
Wallace
p
P
C
P
NQ
Comshaw
P
P
C
P
NQ
Schifer
A
A
C
P
NQ
Viola
P (Z)
A
C
A
NQ
Beckner
P (Z)
P
C
NA
NQ
Brown
Resigned
NA
C
NA
NQ
Pettigrew
NA
NA
NA
P
NQ
P = Present, A = Absent, C = Cancelled Meeting, NQ = No Quorum. NA = Not Applicable, not a member. Shifer and Viola each missed two of the three meetings held with a quorum thus far in 2022.
“No public official, public member, or public employee may make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his office, membership, or employment to influence a governmental decision in which he, a family member, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated has an economic interest.” (SC 8-13-700(B))
Towards the end of their half hour meeting on October 11, 2021, Aiken City Council members enjoyed a lighthearted moment at the expense of this fundamental anti-corruption statute.
Mayor Osbon: Item number one is a request from the Kiwanis Club to hang banners in the downtown to promote Aiken’s Bacon and Brews event. I don’t know that we need any comment from staff…so at this time I would entertain a motion.”
Councilman Ed Girardeau: Question, I’m a member of Kiwanis, and should I recuse myself?
City Attorney Gary Smith: Are you gonna profit from the banners being raised up? I guess it wouldn’t hurt to recuse just to make sure you’re not having any impropriety.”
“Ed Girardeau: “Ok, yeah, recuse me.”
The exchange was followed by a round of laughter from Council members, as seen in this video.
Any casual observer was unaware this was an inside joke. Earlier in the meeting, City Attorney Gary Smith had recused himself, in writing, from an Executive Session legal discussion regarding property whose owners had employed a partner in his law firm. The recusal was not noted in the meeting minutes (1), and it is unknown who provided the legal advice in Smith’s absence. It is the only known written recusal by Smith in 2021 or 2022.
This recusal was obtained by Aiken resident Kelly Cornelius via a Freedom of Information Act Request.
There were no such insider jokes or chuckling during Council’s recent two-hour plus meeting on November 14, 2022. The meeting featured a serious discussion about conflicts of interest rules in the Equine Committee’s bylaws, and City Attorney Gary Smith formally recusing himself twice as many times as he had between January 1, 2021 and October 1, 2022.
Smith recused himself for the second reading of the repeal of the Newberry Street privatization ordinance, and again during discussion and voting on a resolution regarding a property negotiation involving his business partner Mary Guynn. As reported in The Pascalis Attorneys, Smith has been more notable for a lack of recusals in the past two years, which have been cited in three lawsuits alleging violations of South Carolina ethics laws.
The absence of recusals by the City Attorney also reflected poorly on City Council. No members recognized a conflict of interest during multiple potential and probable conflict of interest circumstances; such as when Smith was present and acting in his official capacity during discussions and/or votes to:
Pass a $10 million municipal bond for the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) to purchase properties associated with the secretive Project Pascalis demolition and redevelopment effort. Smith’s law partner Ray Massey was deeply involved in the project as an investor, and signed a contract to purchase the properties at half the price paid for by the AMDC a month prior. The contract was eventually terminated two months after a major lawsuit was filed seeking an injunction against the project.
Sell city-owned property bequested by the estate of Mattie C. Hall in the early 1970’s to his law firm associate Scott Patterson for the deeply discounted price of $150,000, as reported in The City of Aiken’s Mattie C. Hall Property.
Propose the sale of city-owned downtown property to another Ray Massey firm at a deeply discounted price.
The more direct discussion on ethics occurred shortly after Smith’s second recusal, during approval of the Equine Committee’s bylaws. Councilwoman Kay Brohl raised a question regarding the following clause:
“To avoid a conflict of interest, which occurs when an individual uses his or her committee position for personal economic benefit, a member may recuse themselves from the topic discussion and vote. In the case of recusal, the member does not count for establishing a quorum. All members of the Committee are considered to be ‘public members’ under state law, and therefore subject to the Ethics Act and other applicable conduct requirements established in the Code of Laws of South Carolina.”
At issue was whether the word “subsequent” should be inserted before the word “vote,” but the larger issue was addressed by Aiken resident and attorney Lucy Knowles, who stated:
“My suggestion is while you’re changing it you should change ‘may” to ‘must’. That is because that’s a requirement of state law that they have to recuse.”
The Equine Committee may not seem like a potential hotbed for conflict of interests, but local equestrian non-profits routinely receive funding from city accomodations tax revenues to help market their events. The city also contributed a million dollars in 2020 from hospitality and capital projects sales tax revenues to the Aiken Steeplechase Foundation for the purchase of its new venue.
The entire exchange solidified a subsequent contention, made by Aiken resident Luis Rinaldini, that the city needs to change the current relationship with its attorneys. Rinaldini, who helped found the Do It Right! Alliance and is a plaintiff in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, made the case against “continuing with the same cast of characters” in the wake of the failure of Project Pascalis:
“The City of Aiken has just witnessed the cancellation of the 100 million dollar Pascalis project. It’s undoubtedly maybe the largest in its history….yet here were are two months after cancellation and Council hasn’t said anything. I just don’t think that’s smart or a good idea. I think the public wants to know what council feels about this process, and unfortunately your silence isn’t helpful.
”You must see that saying nothing and pursuing business as usual isn’t going to work and it’s just going to make you look arrogant and tone deaf. Citizens want to reasonable change from Council. They want transparency, good governance and fiscal responsibility.
“And there are three other things citizens are looking for. They want a change in the composition and functioning of the Design Review Board, a change in the composition and functioning of the AMDC if it is not going to be abolished, and a change in the city’s relationship with its attorneys.”
Delivered before Aiken City Council on October 24, 2022
Aiken resident Bruce Stemerman delivered the following statement before Aiken City Council on Monday, October 24, 2022. He was one of several citizens to speak before Council during the public meeting.
My name is Bruce Stemerman. I live on Chime Bell Church Road. My wife and I moved to Aiken just a few months ago. Similar to many others who have moved here over the years, Aiken’s delightful downtown district was an important contributing factor in our decision to relocate here from Charleston, SC.
I was dismayed by the Project Pascalis from the first I learned of it. I was able to get up to speed on the proposed plans thanks to the outstanding and thorough reporting in the Aiken Chronicles, the Do It Right group, among others, and conversations with lots of concerned citizens. I felt the project proposed for the very heart of the City’s downtown was way out of scale and if developed would have a material adverse impact on what makes downtown Aiken unique, distinctive and attractive. Something I should add — the community’s impressive activism on this topic has only reinforced our decision about relocating here.
I believe the main focus should be on restoring and renovating the Hotel Aiken. It will no doubt be a challenging project, but no more so than the multitude of similar restoration projects undertaken around this state, country, and world every year. Those who attended the Historic Aiken Foundation’s excellent Preservation Workshop on September 28th heard from noted experts, including a son of Aiken, about the significant and long term benefits associated with preserving and celebrating historic buildings. It was very persuasive and supported by considerable factual research, and I assume that all of you either attended in person or have watched the video. I hope that’s the case.
So here’s what I would do if I ruled the world, and that would be a scary thing, I admit it, but here’s what I would do.
Number one, I’d take immediate steps to prevent and mitigate any further deterioration to the main Hotel Aiken building; number two, provide support and financial assistance for the several small local businesses which have been significantly and negatively impacted by the uncertainty from the threatened demolition of the spaces they operate in; and three, issue a request for proposal for the renovation, restoration, and management of the Hotel Aiken.
These steps will enhance the legacy of this council, in my view, as will abandoning any further consideration of a multi-level parking garage and a superflouous conference center in downtown Aiken.
You may also want to consider these questions relating to the AMDC:
– Has that committee served this Council and the community well? – Has it positively impacted the goodwill between City government and the citizens it serves? – Did the committee follow established City policies and procedures? – Has it failed to carry out its own mission?
When you think about the time, energy and dollars wasted by the AMDC, I hope you’ll conclude that it should be dissolved.
My sincere appreciation of the council for this opportunity to express my views.
Mr. Stemerman’s statement to Aiken City Council begins shortly after minute 15:15 on the video below.
