Tag Archives: Aiken Design Review Board

City Government, November 2022

More Overlooked Absenteeism

November 22, 2022 donaldmoniak 3 Comments

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.

Project Pascalis 2022, September 2022

Overlooked Opportunities: Looking Back at the May/June 2021 Project Pascalis Request for Proposals

September 29, 2022 donaldmoniak 5 Comments

The second rendition of the City of Aiken’s $100 million plus downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis might be ending soon. If so, the future of seven properties collectively known as the Pascalis Properties will be subjected to intense public scrutiny.

A review of the limited information pertaining to the bidding and proposal process that resulted in Project Pascalis Part II provides some insights into the possible future of the Pascalis Properties. Specifically, the best available information indicates that:

Hotel Aiken/Holley House-only redevelopment option remains a strong option, and a successful hotel or residential complex can emerge in the absence of a garage and conference center;
Two developers interested in a hotel-only option were rejected primarily on the basis of their limited interest, in spite of the AMDC considering them “experienced,” “successful,” and “impressive;” and
The City of Aiken’s expectations of recovering its $9.6 investment in commercial downtown properties is unrealistic.

The Short Life of the Project Pascalis, Part I

When the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) announced the existence of Project Pascalis on March 17, 2021, three firms were involved with an effort to consolidate downtown Aiken properties in the pursuit of a large-scale demolition and redevelopment effort:

Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC; represented by local investor and attorney Ray Massey;
GAC, LLC; the Pascalis project developer represented by local investor and developer Weldon Wyatt;
WTC Investments, LLC; a Wyatt family firm that served as the property procurement arm of GAC, LLC.

As reported in part three of Project Pascalis Includes the Alley, one of the property negotiators for WTC Investments was Ray Massey. The properties controlled by his Aiken Alley Holdings investor group were fully integrated into the project design.

During the first week of May, 2021, the first Project Pascalis development effort collapsed when Weldon Wyatt’s GAC, LLC abruptly withdrew from the project. To salvage the endeavor, the AMDC pursued an option in its Cost Sharing Agreement with GAC to take control of properties under contract to GAC via WTC Investments. The Aiken Chamber of Commerce “advanced” the AMDC $135,000 to hold Wyatt’s $9.5 million of purchase and sale agreements with the Shah and Anderson families under an “assignment” status.

Pascalis Project Part II Begins

After the first of the property assignments was completed on May 14th, the AMDC pursued a private Request for Proposals (RFP) with select developers, a process that is alleged to have violated South Carolina Community Development law. (1)

Between May 19-21, 2021, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission secretly sent out a request for proposals to select developers without any public advertisement of the RFP as required by SC Community Development law. The deadline for proposals was set for June 7, 2021. The following three items — Pascalis summary ProjectPascalis_Option2a_05.03.21 (002), and Pascalis footprint — were sent, as follows, to developers the AMDC chose as candidates:

Pascalis summary, a two-page background document with “preliminary details” that defined the project as involving the following elements:

Limited service hotel offering 100 +/- rooms (Privately constructed, owned, operated )
Conference Center of not less than 25,000 square feet with full banquet facilities to include commercial kitchen (to be owned and operated by the AMDC)
Parking garage servicing both the hotel and conference center with no fewer than 400 spaces (to be owned by the AMDC)
If the site allows and it proves economically feasible, 60 +/- residential units wrapping the parking structure. These may be rental or owner-occupies units. (Privately funded, owned, operated)

Among the preliminary details was an offer of a half-acre of Newberry Street for development, and a description of Pascalis properties as being under AMDC control:

“ The Aiken Municipal Development Commission holds contracts to purchase roughly 1.6 acres in the downtown and anticipates realigning the Newberry Street frontage in the project area to make an additional .5 acres available for the redevelopment.”

ProjectPascalis_Option2a_05.03.21 (002), a scaled back conceptual plan developed the first week of May, 2021 by GAC/AMDC contractor Boudreaux Group as Wyatt was threatening to exit to project.

Whereas the original Option 2 involved four to five-story residential buildings flanking The Alley on properties controlled by, or being pursued by, Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC, Option 2A involved only properties under control by the AMDC. Figure 1 illustrates the difference between the two projects.

Figure 1. Option 2 incorporated property controlled or sought by Aiken Alley Holdings;
Option 2A only incorporated property controlled by the AMDC and the Aiken Chamber of Commerce.

Pascalis footprint, a one-page map on Aiken County’s public.net land records database, produced on May 17th, 2021.

Choosing a Developer

On June 8, 2021, the AMDC met in closed-door, Executive Session for one hour to discuss the proposals. A June 10th memo from Tim O’Briant cautioning about a lobbying effort by one developer provides some insight to the process:

“In all cases, please refer any questions about the status of the selection or the process to me. While I am pursuing discussions with the single selected developer, I will not be informing other firms of that and until late next week at the earliest. I know I don’t need to remind you that any discussion of what occurred in executive session could be very damaging to the process.”

A review of seven proposals from the May-June, 2021 solicitation effort was summarized by AMDC officials in an undated (see footnote 1) table that was not released (in response to a FOIA request) until March, 2022; and remains partially redacted. Titled “Pascalis offers comparison_Redacted,” the table (Figure 2) contains brief assessments of seven proposals with the following ranked elements:

Completeness of the proposal
Financial contribution and Land Purchase price
Experience with similar projects
Local Ties
Enforceability of the offer

(Figure 2: AMDC’s Redacted Summary Table Ranking Project Pascalis proposals. June 2021)

The Raines Group Proposal?

The highest ranked proposal was third from the top; it was described as “exceptionally complete” and comments on its “local ties” are the most extensive.

The proposal is most likely to have originated from the Raines Group of Florence, SC, based on the following facts:

a. Raines Group was eventually named as the lead developer within the Pascalis development firm RPM Development Partners, which stands for Raines, (Lat) Purser, and (Ray) Massey—who is also the firm’s agent. RPM Development Partners registered for business in South Carolina on October 27, 2021—one month after Massey helped organize an AMDC trip to Florence, SC for a meeting with Raines and a tour of their properties. Massey and local investors were also credited by the AMDC for having assembled the Raines-led team.

b. The bidder, described as having “nationwide experience,” offered: “to purchase the AMDC properties in November, 2021 for $9.5 million in exchange for an agreement that AMDC would purchase the property back if no project proceeds due to a lack of action by City/AMDC after 12 months of due diligence.”

Ray Massey had full knowledge of the AMDC/Chamber of Commerce’s purchase price, as he had helped negotiate the original purchase and sale agreements and also was the agent for WTC Investments, LLC when it transferred control of downtown property purchase and sale agreements to the Aiken Chamber of Commerce. No other firm came close to offering the exact purchase price for the seven properties in question.

c. The 12-month deadline in the proposal is similar to a deadline in the reported Purchase and Sale Agreement with RPM Development Partners.

While the AMDC did purchase the Pascalis properties on November 9, 2021, a Master Development Agreement (MDA) was being negotiated in October, 2021. (2) It is likely that negotiations to sell the properties to RPM fell through, leading to a December 3, 2021 AMDC announcement of a Purchase and Sale agreement between the AMDC and RPM Development Partners. In the announcement, the AMDC wrote:

“The initial Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) announced today gives the AMDC and RPM until no later than Summer 2022 to come to terms on a mutually beneficial Master Development Agreement.”

2. The Hotel Only Developer

One unknown developer offered only to purchase the hotel at a “deeply discounted price of $1.0 million,” and presented no interest in the AMDC-required apartments, parking garage, and conference center. Since the bidder was described as a “successful hotel developer with a good portion of successful projects,” it is evident that a conference center and garage are unnecessary elements for a new or renovated Hotel Aiken.

The AMDC rejected this proposal to only work on renovation or replacement of Hotel Aiken.

The $1.0 million offer closely matches Aiken County’s 2021 land appraisal for the Hotel Aiken, supporting the conclusion in How Much Project Pascalis Can Aiken Taxpayers Stand? that the value of the property purchased by the AMDC is equal to the land value minus the demolition value—at least perhaps in the mind of one successful hotel developer.

This developer received a score of only 47%.

3. The Hotel Renovation to Apartments Developer.

A third developer proposed to “pay market value for current hotel Aiken site only,” and a “renovation and conversion to apartments.” This earned them a 0 out of 3 score in the “completeness of proposal” category.

The AMDC rejected this proposal to only work on the Hotel Aiken property; and redacted information that is likely not exempt under FOIA.

This developer was described as having:

“an impressive resume of redevelopment projects, adaptive reuse, (~~redacted words~~) (but no) direct experience with large scale new construction of a similar project.”

This developer received a score of only 40%, despite rating 3 of 3 in the “local ties” department. The developer may involve John Gumpert of Camden Partners, who is spearheading efforts to repurpose the old Aiken County Hospital; and the old Vaucluse and Warrenville Mills in Aiken County’s Horse Creek Valley.

Although Gumpert has denied any involvement in the Hotel Aiken, this proposal indicates at least one unidentified developer believed the Hotel Aiken was suitable for renovation. Because the proposal remains sealed and publicly unavailable, any possible preference for historic preservation tax credit funding is unknown.

Conclusions

The AMDC’s ill-advised, and probably illegal, May 2021, Request for Proposals does provide insights into the possible future of the Pascalis properties. Unsealing all the proposals, which have been blocked from public view through the excessive and possibly illegal use of SC Freedom of Information Act exemptions, can only add value to the upcoming dialogue and debate. (3)

First, two developers with interest only in the Hotel Aiken property were rejected largely due to that limited interest. At least two highly experienced, successful developers offered Hotel Aiken-only proposals — an indication that industry experts believe apartments or a hotel could be built on the site of the Hotel Aiken in the absence a conference center, apartments, or a parking garage.

Second, the AMDC solicitation process was strongly biased towards demolition and reconstruction. As a result, no consideration was given to the prospect of funding through historic preservation tax credits.

Third, only one developer expressed interest in paying $9.6 million for the Pascalis properties. In the end, no final, hard offer occurred and the AMDC and City of Aiken were left as downtown commercial property owners. The likelihood of the city recovering its costs to date appears to be exceedingly low.

________________

References and Footnotes:

(1) This entire process occurred behind closed doors, in spite of, or perhaps because of, the fact the project was announced with great fanfare on March 17, 2021. No further information on this solicitation process has been released by the AMDC, which has claimed since May of this year that the solicitation process remains open. Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh has denied the release any correspondence that accompanied the solicitation, or any other information related to the original solicitation.

The only additional information that has been released is a December 13, 2021 Request for Proposals that was publicly advertised in the Aiken Standard on December 13, 2021; ten days after the AMDC announced the selection of its preferred developer for Project Pascalis. The ad ran again on December 20, 2021, and the deadline date for proposals was December 22, 2021.

Allegations of violations of South Carolina Community Development Law can be read on Pages 44-46 in Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al:

https://aikenchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/20220705_Filed_Summons_and_Complaint.pdf

(2) The October, 2021 invoice from Project Pascalis project manager Capstone Services indicates negotiations on a Master Development Agreement with the selected developer.

(3) The redactions in the review table are now six months old. Several of the candidates received very low scores and were rejected by the AMDC. There is little to no justification for applying the SC FOIA exemptions #5 and #9, as City of Aiken City Manager and Record Custodian Stuart Bedenbaugh has maintained.

SC FOIA records exemption #5: “Documents of and documents incidental to proposed contractual arrangements and documents of and documents incidental to proposed sales or purchases of property”; and

SC FOIA records examption #9: “Memoranda, correspondence, documents, and working papers relative to efforts or activities of a public body and of a person or entity employed by or authorized to act for or on behalf of a public body to attract business or industry to invest within South Carolina;”

This process was conducted using public funds, and the records created during the process should be publicly available to allow for a fully informed public debate.

As reported in The AECOM Plan, Andy Cajka is President of Southern Hospitality Group, which was recruited during the collapse of Project Pascalis, Part I.:

The first Pascalis project collapsed in early May when Weldon Wyatt withdrew from the deal. As part of the negotiations to salvage the deal, Mayor Osbon met with Weldon Wyatt and Greenville based developer Andy Cajka, President of Greenville, SC based Southern Hospitality Group. A memorandum from Tim O’Briant to AMDC members Jameson, Chris Verenes, and Chairman Keith Wood described the meeting:

“The Mayor and Weldon met with Andy on Monday, I was out of town, apparently shg hotels will possibly deliver a LOI (letter of intent) regarding the hotel this week. The mayor agreed the meeting went well and Andy was engaged in making a deal that would be privately funded based on the public dollars and incentives driving the project. Mayor indicates he deferred question about Friday negotiations and City’s position on deal points citing my absence and his lack of information on the subject.”

August 2022, In the Demolition Zone, Laws & Bylaws, Project Pascalis 2022

A Project Pascalis Update

August 29, 2022 donaldmoniak 3 Comments

by Don Moniak
August 29, 2022

Following is an update since June 13, 2022 on various aspects of the City of Aiken’s $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis. For information prior to that time, see A Project Pascalis Timeline.

Four developments and trends are notable:

A major lawsuit featuring nine plaintiffs and twenty-seven defendants was filed on July 5, 2022 seeking an injunction to halt the project.
The “Do It Right Alliance” amassed more than 2,000 signatures for a petition to overturn two City of Aiken ordinances; the 2022 ordinance allowing partial privatization of Newberry Street; and the 2019 ordinance establishing the AMDC.
Progress on Project Pascalis appeared to stall, and was likely in a process of reorganization prior to the lawsuit. A June 2022 billing invoice from the law firm of Pope-Flynn to the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) indicated work on a new redevelopment plan, a new “omnibus ordinance,” and a project “pivot.” No final Master Development Agreement has been reached that would trigger demolition work and the privatization of a portion of Newberry Street.
Increased secrecy surrounded the project. Only closed-door meetings regarding the project occurred since June 21, documents containing basic information were partially redacted, an increase in denial of documents occurred, and officials have declined comment due to pending litigation—even when the issue is outside the scope of the litigation.

Timeline Since June 21, 2022

June 13: The AMDC and City Council spend two hours in a joint closed-door Executive Session to discuss “to discuss Project Pascalis with City Council and the developers.” City Council cites the following open meeting exemption to justify closing the doors “pursuant to Section 30-4-70(a)(2) for consideration and discussion of matters related to development of Project Pascalis regarding negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements related to Project Pascalis and receipt of related legal advice.”

June 21: Public comment is prohibited from Design Review Board public workshop that lasts nearly three hours.

Prior to the workshop, AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. meets with AMDC to “work on a new direction and how to get there.” (2)

The AMDC checking account has a balance of $101,195.30

June 22: AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. works on an “omnnibus ordinance,” and “revising the redevelopment plan,” for 3.0 hours. Details are unknown. (2)

Gary Pope, Jr. also spends two hours reviewing South Carolina’s “Community Development Corporation Act, schedule, and proposed revisions to Project Pascalis plan.” (Community Development Corporation Act allows for the creation of non-profit corporations with “a primary mission of developing and improving low-income communities and neighborhoods through economic and related development,” and community development financial institutions to assist with credit and capital.

https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2009/title-34/chapter-43

Page 1 of June invoice to AMDC from Pope-Flynn. Click to view full size.

Page 2 of June invoice to AMDC from Pope Flynn. Click to view full size.

AMDC payment of June invoice. Click to view full size.

June 24: The City of Aiken posts forty-five Demolition Application notices for a July 5th hearing in front of Newberry Hall, Warneke Cleaners, the former State Farm building on Newberry Street; the McGhee Building (historic CC Johnson Drug Store, On Board Realty, Security Finance), Taj Aiken Restaurant, and the former Holley House motel on Richland Avenue.

Two of the 45 Demolition Application notices posted by the City of Aiken on 6/24/22

AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. works on “redevelopment plan and necessary items to pivot project” for 5.5 hours.

June 27: Pope-Flynn staff work 12.2 hours to “prepare for meeting at City of Aiken. Participate in Executive Session.”

Aiken City Council votes unanimously to enter into closed-door, Executive Session “to discuss negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements relating to Project Pascalis and receipt of related legal advice.” The closed-door session lasts one hour, and there is no further discussion of Project Pascalis during the subsequent open meeting.

June 29: Demolition Application from RPM Development Partners, LLC to the Design Review Board to demolish motel is withdrawn Current status of demolition plans is unknown.

Demolition sign — ”Withdrawn” stickers applied to Demolition notices on 6/29/22. Click individual images to view full-size

”Withdrawn” stickers applied to Demolition notices on 6/29/22. Click individual images to view full-size

July 5: Lawsuit filed on behalf of nine plaintiff’s seeking injunction to stop project; citing violations of City of Aiken ordinances and laws governing South Carolina community development, local government comprehensive planning, ethics and conduct of public officials, freedom of information, and local government planning.

Plaintiffs seek to stop Project Pascalis by asking for “a declaration from the Court that certain actions of the City and certain municipal bodies are null and void and incapable of being implemented, in whole or in part” and “injunctions preventing the continued implementation of the null and void acts.” Plaintiffs do not ask for damages.

Court Filings to date in Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al; from most recent.

Osbon, In His Capacity As Mayor, and City Council	Motion/Protection from Discovery	8/22/2022-09:50
Mayor and City Council	Exhibit B: Discovery Documents
Blake, David W.	Service/Acceptance Of Service on Raines Company	08/17/2022-08:19
City Of Aiken	Answer/Answer	08/15/2022-22:45
City Of Aiken	Motion/Dismiss	08/15/2022-22:23
Smith, Gary	Answer/Answer	08/11/2022-14:54
Blake, David W.	Service/Acceptance Of Service on Rpm Development Partners, LLC	08/08/2022-14:41
Blake, David W.	Service/Acceptance Of Service on Aiken Design Review Board	07/28/2022-09:02
Smith, Gary	Service/Acceptance Of Service on Gary Smith	07/12/2022-14:53
Blake, David W.	Summons & Complaint	07/05/2022-10:24

July 9: The law firm of Pope-Flynn submits $20,546.03 bill to the AMDC for fifty-nine hours of work completed in June, 2022.

July 11: Aiken City Council meets in closed door executive session with Attorney Daniel Plyler for two hours to discuss legal matters related to the lawsuit, but a Joint executive session with the AMDC is cancelled.

Aiken City Council tables amendment to amend AMDC establishment ordinance to correspond to by-laws written by the AMDC that allows non-residents of the city who have “vested business interests” to serve as AMDC members. No questions pertaining to the tabled amendment are allowed by Presiding Officer Mayor Rick Osbon.

July 12: AMDC Property Manager On Board Realty deposits $11,205.00 in rent payments to the AMDC checking account.

AMDC cancels monthly meeting, reportedly due to quorum issues.

July 13-14. In response to a citizen alert to the City of Aiken, the AMDC removes dozens of files from its “Transparency Page” at aikenmdc.org. The files contained copies of AMDC checks and personal business information that was not properly redacted.

July 22: Historic Aiken Foundation sends letter to AMDC Chairman Keith Wood requesting increased safety and security measures at the Hotel Aiken.

July 25 to 31: City of Aiken code enforcement begin removing “Say No to Project Pascalis” signs from the right-of-ways in front of private residences, citing the city’s complex sign ordinance.

July 26: Chairman Wood replies to Historic Aiken Foundation, denying all issues raised.

AMDC checking account has balance of $53,014.41

July 28: Aiken Public Safety conducts first fire inspection at Hotel Aiken since March, 2021.

August 4: City of Aiken begins to routinely triple the fees for some Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests; increasing the rate for document “search, retrieval, review, and redaction” from $16/hr to $48/hr.

August 9: AMDC cancels monthly meeting for second straight month due to lack of a quorum.

August 10-11 In response to a FOIA request, the AMDC reposts most of the invoices previously removed in mid-July, and invoices since April 1, 2022, within a file named “AMDC Financial Binder” is posted to the commission’s “Transparency Page,” https://aikenmdc.org/2022/03/29/project-pascalis-public-records/. The unannounced posting marks the first change to the AMDC website since the records were removed.

August 12: In Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for City Attorney Gary Smith submit “Answer of Defendant Gary Smith.” A review of the answer can be viewed at The Gary Smith Defense: An Admissions, Inconsistencies, and More New Questions Than Answers at the Aiken Chronicles.

August 15: In Blake et al vs. City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the City of Aiken file:

“Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Defendants Osbon, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz.”
“Answer on Behalf of Defendants City of Aiken, Osbon, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz.” (3. Comments on Motion and Answer)

August 18: In Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the Plaintiff file discovery questions and requests for information:

First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Rick Osbon

First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Rick Osbon

First Set of Interrogatories to All Members of Aiken City Council

First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to all Members of Aiken City Council.

August 22: In Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the City of Aiken file: “Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order on Behalf of Defendants Osbon, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz;” in response to August 18th discovery issuance.

August 23-26: AMDC adds thirteen pages of partially redacted documents to its “AMDC Financial Binder.” Four of the documents had been already disclosed by the AMDC prior to mid-July; those copies contained no redactions.

Project Time Sheet from December 2021, formerly posted on AMDC website (left image), now redacted (right image).

Status as of August 28, 2022

As of August 25, no answer has been forthcoming from attorneys representing the Design Review Board or the Aiken Municipal Development Association.

The Master Development Agreement (MDA) necessary for any future work appears to be still in negotiation, and time is running short. On December 3, 2021, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) wrote:

The initial Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) announced today gives the AMDC and RPM until no later than Summer 2022 to come to terms on a mutually beneficial Master Development Agreement. (4)

No such agreement has been announced, and the AMDC has not replied to a letter asking for the exact deadline date on the PSA, even though this date is not pertinent to the lawsuit.

No announcements on the status of the MDA, the second demolition application, or any other aspect of the project such the “omnibus ordinance,” a new redevelopment plan, or the possibility of a non-profit corporation to replace the AMDC has been forthcoming from the City of Aiken.

The tree growing out of the window on the second floor of the Berkman Building on Laurens Street, above Beyond Bijou, remains. A photo of this tree was first used by the AMDC on November 9, 2021 to illustrate the “blighted status” of its new downtown properties. The AMDC has not acted to remove the tree since that time.

__________________

References and Notes

(1) This information is contained in the Pope-Flynn law firm’s June 2022 billing invoice to the AMDC, found on Page 161-162.

Click to access AMDC-Financials-binder-redacted_Redacted2.pdf

(2) Comments on August 15, 2022 motion and answer:

In the motion to dismiss Mayor Osbon and individual members of City Council, the city’s attorneys cited the South Carolina Tort Claims Act to argue that only a government entity must be named. They argue that individuals are “not proper parties” and “must be dismissed as they are already represented through defendant City of Aiken;” while admitting the City of Aiken was “correctly named the governmental entity” to which the Mayor and City Council belong. In other /words, they argue the City of Aiken can be sued in whole but individuals representing the city are exempt, under Tort law.

Torts are, by definition, “an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.”

(For more on Tort Law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort)

Since the lawsuit is not a tort action and not a liability case, and no damages are being sought, it is unclear why the City’s attorneys are making this argument.

In the “answer on behalf of defendants,” City attorneys cite the motion to dismiss by arguing, “Defendants are simply the alter-ego of the City of Aiken, and therefore said Defendants must be dismissed.” The South Carolina Tort Claims Act is cited again, even though the word “Tort” is absent from the July 5th Summons and there is no request for damages, only injunctive relief.

In total, City attorneys offered sixteen defenses but provided minimal to zero substance for the various defenses; and denied nearly every allegation beyond the fact the City of Aiken is a municipality.

(3) Comments on “Requests for Production of Documents” and the “Motion for a Protective Order” to exclude individual defendants from discovery.

The requests for documents is the first basic phase of discovery. It is a request casting a wide net for documentation relating to the project, and includes a request for:

“Any and all documents and other things, including letters, e-mail, texts, entries in social media, journals, photos, recordings, sketches, videos, logs, diaries, notes, or other written material of any kind in any media in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant or its counsel which relate in any way to the claims or defenses alleged in this action. If Defendant is asserting a privilege, please provide a privilege log.”

The defendant’s lawyers responded to the plaintiff’s request for the production of documents by arguing that individual city council members and the Mayor

“should not have to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests until a ruling has been made on their pending Motion to Dismiss.”

If the Motion to Dismiss the individual council members and the Mayor is denied, then the individuals will be subjected to the rules of discovery. If the motion is approved, any official business conducted by city council members and the Mayor will remain subject to the rules of discovery, because the City of Aiken will remain a defendant.

(4) The AMDC announcement from December 3, 2021 also reads:

“The agreement will include complete designs, engineering and permitting required to move forward with Project Pascalis. Any such development agreement would establish, among other things, the price the developer would pay for the property, and the amount the developers would be required to invest in the proposed privately funded, owned/operated hotel and residential portions of the project. The AMDC also intends for the agreement to hold the project to strict completion deadlines that will ensure it moves at a deliberate pace and avoids potential delays. The Master Development Agreement being negotiated would also establish fixed pricing for the proposed conference center and parking facility that would be purchased by the City of Aiken upon completion.”

From:
AMDC begins Development Agreement negotiations
Dec 3, 2021

AMDC begins Development Agreement negotiations

City Government, July 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

The Chairman’s Bias

July 20, 2022 donaldmoniak 4 Comments

Recently obtained emails between City of Aiken officials further reveal bias and irregularities in the legal process for the controversial Project Pascalis. The emails to and from City of Aiken Design Review Board Chairman McDonald Law were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (1), and are dated between March 1st and June 22, 2022. They indicate:

a strong bias in favor of the entirety of the project, illustrated by a dismissal of dissenting viewpoints, and a disregard for public input. Most notably, Chairman Law wrote that local historic preservationist contractors Bill and Bernice McGhee “have unfortunately been activated to oppose the entire project based on misinformation about efforts to preserve the corner.”
back channel efforts to influence the project outside of the legal process.
a tendency to steer the process towards approval instead of conducting fair and open meetings and hearings.

Aiken’s Design Review Board

The City of Aiken’s Design Review Board (DRB or Board) reviews all applications for any architectural change and enforcing the zoning ordinances in the city’s historic districts. Essentially, it’s purview is to protect the historical integrity that makes historic district neighborhoods some of the most financially valuable in South Carolina and certainly in Aiken County.

The Board’s deliberations are described as “quasi-judicial,” meaning it functions as an administrative court of law in which fair, full, and unbiased hearings are expected. Since the Board’s decision can only be appealed in the courts, it is arguably the most city’s powerful arbiter regarding proposed changes to the historic district; making its Chairperson one of the more powerful appointed positions in the city.

This year the Design Review Board has reviewed a wide array of proposed property changes in the historic district, including the following modifications to private homes:

construction of a stone driveway,
removal of two chimneys,
window and garage door replacement
a front porch enclosure
construction of a pool guest house
replacement of a roof and windows

This category of seemingly minor requests dominates the Board’s proceedings, but larger projects are also heard. The two most notable this year were scheduled on March 1st and July 5th.

The final item on the Board’s March 1, 2022 agenda was “hearing for demolition of 235 Richland Avenue and 106 Laurens Street.” These are the vacant Hotel Aiken, long a subject of dispute, and the adjacent building, also of 1920 origin, to its south housing a trio of active businesses: Beyond Bijou, Vampire Penguin, and Ginger Bee.

The buildings were acquired by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) on November 9, 2021, following a complex and tangled web of transactions spanning eight months. (2) The AMDC is a redevelopment agency established by Aiken City Council in 2019.

Beyond Bijoux, Vampire Penguin, Ginger Bee — 106-108-110 Laurens St SW / Beyond Bijous-Vampire Penguin-Ginger Bee (Photo courtesy of Donald Moniak)

The March 1, 2022 hearing proceeded as planned, and the first demolition approval was made by a 6-1 vote, further inflaming an already contentious debate about the largest redevelopment project in downtown Aiken since the 1953 gas explosion. The DRB’s approval of that demolition request was an essential first step in the City of Aiken’s downtown demolish and redevelop endeavor called Project Pascalis, an effort involving more than three acres of a city block of seven and a half acres.

The Pascalis project will displace eight small businesses (3) and place Newberry Hall, the only business hosting and catering to large downtown meetings and conferences, on hiatus during the three plus years of construction. Large outdoor events will need to be relocated from the popular Newberry Street festival area that is also threatened with demolition.

A second hearing for demolition of the remaining four buildings owned by the AMDC, as well as a former State Farm Insurance office owned by Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC, was scheduled for July 5, 2022. The hearing was cancelled after the city’s chosen developer withdrew the application on June 30th. (4) Instead of a demolition hearing, a lawsuit seeking an injunction to halt the project was filed on July 5th, and prominently features the DRB among the many allegations of legal misconduct. (5)

Warneke Cleaners (Photo courtesy of Debbie Traves Brown)

The four buildings owned by the AMDC and subject to the cancelled demolition request are the Holley House motel (currently vacant), Newberry Hall (6), Warneke Cleaners, and the building known as the old CC Johnson Drug Store.

The former CC Johnson Drug Store — The corner business in the McGhee Block of buildings has housed a number of businesses over the past 100+ years, including the old CC Johnson Drug Store, (1920-1940), Cloud 7 Gift Shop (1960s-70s), and, most recently, Playoffs Sports Bar. (Photo courtesy of Michael Aiken)

The latter was built in 1920 by McGhee and McGhee general contractors to house the historic CC Johnson Drug Store. This business was an important Aiken feature in at least one edition of “The Negro Motorist Green Book.” More recently the building housed Pat’s Restaurant and lastly the Playoffs Bar.

Marginalizing A Popular Viewpoint

After the building was threatened with demolition during a previous downtown redevelopment proposal in 2017, Bill and Bernice McGhee expressed a desire to maintain the building.(7) Bill McGhee’s grandfather William McGhee, along with A.G. McGhee, owned and operated McGhee and McGhee, which also constructed the first Aiken Hospital in 1917, (no longer in existence), and notable Aiken landmarks including the Fermata Club and the iconic serpentine wall at Hopelands and Whiskey.

Newspaper clipping of 1918 advertisement for McGhee & McGhee Contractors and Builders of Aiken, SC

With a business motto of “restoring Aiken, one brick at a time,” the McGhee family remains prominently and deeply involved with historic preservation projects. The AMDC itself has proudly described them as partners in the commission’s Williamsburg Street redevelopment efforts. If you see an old house being moved on an Aiken street, it is likely to involve the McGhee family businesses.

In January 2020 Bill McGhee received The Aiken Award “for his restoration work of old residences on the city’s Northside.” After that honor, Bill and Beatrice McGhee also received the second lifetime achievement award ever bestowed by the Historic Aiken Foundation.

These efforts also made the McGhees regulars before the Design Review Board. For example, in January 2021 the Board unanimously approved their application to relocate and restore two historic homes to 222 Williamsburg, St, SE. One of the homes, at 147 Newberry Street, NW, had been previously approved for demolition, but the owner agreed to donate the structure to the McGhees.

The McGhees advocacy for preserving the CC Johnson Drug Store was not well received by Chairman Law. In a March 20, 2022 email exchange, Mr. Law wrote to Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant:

If the parking structure is rotated 90 degrees, the Richland Ave building frontage can remain its current length. Another advantage, and not a small one, is that the side of the McGhee and McGhee building can also be preserved. The McGhees have unfortunately been activated to oppose the entire project based on misinformation about efforts to preserve the corner.

This marginalization of the family’s concerns continued into April. On April 4th Mr. McGhee wrote to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh:

Sir

We have been in contact with Brent Leggs’ office of the National Trust African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund about the Dr. C. C. Johnson Drugstore/McGhee Building. We have provided Ms. Tiffany Tolbert, Associate Director, with information about the proposed demolition and the historic significance of the property to the City of Aiken. Ms. Tolbert has offered to examine options other than demolition and guidance from NTHP. When may we arrange a conference call with Ms. Tolbert, your office and members of the Concerned Citizens group?

Mr Bedenbaugh responded:

Bill,

The property is owned by the Aiken Municipal Development Corporation, which is governed by its own board. You will need to work through Tim O’Briant [cc’d above] to schedule a meeting with their officials.

Mr. O’Briant then asked Mr. McGhee:

Can your group and the Trust folks be available for the April 12 Commission meeting at 3:30 pm? Let me know and I can set it up.

A presentation slot was set up for the April 12th meeting. Normally presentations from outside parties are placed at or near the top of city council, board, and commission agendas. For example, at its November 9, 2021 meeting the AMDC placed presentations by consultants Joseph Minicozzi of Urban3 and Chris Brewer of AECOM at the top of the agenda and before commission business.

On April 12, the “presentation regarding CC Johnson Drug Store Recognition and Proposed Facade Preservation—Bill McGhee” was sixth on the agenda. An “Economic Development Master Plan Implementation Update” by $4,000-a-month consulting program manager Tom Hallman was at the top of the agenda. It was Mr. Hallman’s second update on the same master plan in six months.

The AMDC’s meeting minutes for that day are long on detail for Mr. Hallman’s presentation and devoid of detail for Mr. McGhee’s presentation. Six pages of minutes are devoted to Mr. Hallman’s update and associated commissioner questions and comments. It was at this meeting that the issue of the Hitchcock Woods arose, with Chair Keith Wood asking:

Mr. Wood noted that the Commission had talked about working with Hitchcock Woods to make the Woods more open for public use and for marketing. It is a huge resource for the city. He asked if anything had developed there yet, and if the Commission should revisit that.

The Hitchcock Woods are a large privately owned and managed “urban forest” mostly outside the physical jurisdiction of the AMDC, and entirely outside its legal jurisdiction.

In contrast a short paragraph was devoted to the McGhee’s presentation regarding the CC Johnson Drug Store.

The minutes merely read:

Mr. Wood stated the next item is a presentation from Mr. Bill McGhee regarding recognition of the CC Johnson Drug Store property on the corner of Newberry Street and Richland Avenue which is a part of the Pascalis Project.

Mr. McGhee stated he had been talking with the National Trust for historic preservation called Saving Places . He said he planned to have someone from that group to talk to MDC today , but he had not been able to make those arrangements. He is still working with them to see what they can do to help us save as much as we can of the Johnson Drug Store. He pointed out that presently the plan is to destroy the building and to leave a wall. He said he was looking to save the whole building.

If there were any comments or questions that day from Commissioners, they were not recorded in the minutes. McDonald Law was also at the meeting and received the email exchange leading to the presentation, but no other DRB members attended the event and it does not appear any other members were notified. According to the minutes, Mr. Law’s only comment that day, just a month after describing Mr. McGhee as “activated” by “misinformation” was:

McDonald Law stated following up on the comment about DRB input on Pascalis , they had a work session and received a good many comments from the public and Commissioners. The developers responded very quickly to DRB’s comments at their last meeting.

On April 20th, Project Pascalis developers presented their latest renditions. A compromise was proposed to repurpose the existing storefront facade as the entrance to the proposed luxury apartments, with the idea to “tell the story of of the CC Johnson Drugstore and and that’s really the most important thing.” (8)

On May 3rd, the DRB held its monthly meeting. On the agenda was another demolition proposal, this time for the house at 147 Newberry St, NW which the McGhees had been methodically salvaging and preparing to move. The applicant this time was the Aiken Corporation, which had a contract to buy the property and two adjacent vacant lots. According to the application:

The Board previously gave its consent to Bill McGhee to move the house to another location. Upon information and belief, Mr. McGhee was unable move the house due to the required removal and substantial trimming of a number of trees and abandoned all efforts to move it.(9)

The Board voted unanimously to approve. Bill and Bernice McGhee were not present at the hearing. Two months later Bernice McGhee was listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit to stop the Pascalis project; and McDonald Law was named as one of thirty defendants.

________________

Next: Part 2: The Chairman’s Bias: A Demolition “Home Run,” evasion of the legal process, and the steering towards approval.

References

(1) On June 23, 2022 I submitted a FOIA request asking for “All email and paper communication between Design Review Board Chair McDonald Law Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, and/or AMDC Chair Keith Wood between March 1, 2022 and June 22, 2022.” The intent of the request was to obtain information relating to Mr. Law’s advocacy for relocating the proposed conference center location to the recently vacated city hall building at 214 Park Avenue, West.

The city responded on July 8th with 15 email exchanges and 16 attachments.

(2) See “A Project Pascalis Timeline.”

A Project Pascalis Timeline

(3) The businesses being forced to relocate or even close are Warneke Cleaners, Taj Restaurant, On Board Reality, Nationwide (already moved), Security Finance, Beyond Bijou, Vampire Penguin, and Ginger Bee.

(4) https://aikenchronicles.com/2022/06/30/project-pascalis-demolition-applications-withdrawn-not-postponed/#jp-carousel-333

(5) The Historic Aiken Foundation is one of nine plaintiff’s in the lawsuit. A book-style presentation of the lawsuit, as well as a summary of project issues, is at:

Project Pascalis

(6) For more information on how Newberry Hall became a part of the project, see:

When No Info is Good Info: A City Not Listening, the Antique Mall, and Newberry Hall

(7) https://apnews.com/article/f5ba48e261d44842880a421a5264297c is an Aiken Standard article featuring the McGhee family.

https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=844&LayerID=15264&PageTypeID=4&PageID=6879&Q=1422540524&KeyValue=121-21-08-003

(8) RPM Development Partner’s project manager Jay Hamm. See transcript at:

https://pastebin.com/X7R9dkHb?fbclid=IwAR0PO4sICvolkCrEfVQdVkFCjl6Tv4sU2ArE5_VdR3qcPgOxazrmTHF18sg

(9) FOIA request for correspondence since January 1, 2022 between the AMDC and the Aiken Corporation was met with a $112 cost estimate for more than seven hours of search, retrieval, and review of records. The estimate has been appealed.

Additional Information and Resources:

Design Review Board bylaws

https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=407760&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

DRB Meeting Minutes: January 5, 2021

https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=551455&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

DRB Meeting Minutes: March 1, 2022

https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2735903&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

July 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

Project Pascalis Lawsuit Alleges an Abundance of Violations of State and Local Law.

July 5, 2022 donaldmoniak 1 Comment

July 5, 2022

by Don Moniak

UPDATES:
August 11, 2022: Answer of Defendant Gary Smith
See also: “The Gary Smith Defense: An Admission, Inconsistencies, and More New Questions Than Answers,” by Donald Moniak

August 15, 2022: Answer on Behalf of Defendants City of Aiken, Osban, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz

August 22, 2022: Defendants’ attorney submits Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order on Behalf of Defendants Obson, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz.

Read full text of lawsuit here:

City of Aiken Filed_Summons_and_Complaint Click to Read lawsuit

Page One view: Plaintiffs and Defendants in Project Pascalis lawsuit.

Lawyers for nine plaintiffs, including the Historic Aiken Foundation, Green Boundary Foundation and former City Councilperson Dick Dewar, filed a complaint in the Second Judicial Circuit of South Carolina against two dozen City of Aiken officials and a pair of development companies collaborating with the city to demolish and reconstruct a substantial portion of historic, downtown Aiken.

Pages one to thirty-six of the plea assiduously outline the legal basis for their claims, including South Carolina Community Development, Freedom of Information, Ethics and Government Accountability statutes; and City of Aiken zoning ordinances.

Pages 36 to 90 contain the general factual allegations and provide welcome summertime nonfiction for a majority of Aiken area residents who object to Project Pascalis. Like a good true white collar crime story, the allegations detail sham proceedings, citizens locked out of a distorted and confusing public process, conflict of interest violations from the Mayor to the City Attorney, and city boards that regulate the public while serving the developers they are charged with monitoring.

The City of Aiken Recreation Commission’s High Absenteeism Rate

Share this:

The Short Life of the Project Pascalis, Part I

Pascalis Project Part II Begins

Choosing a Developer

Share this:

Share this:

Aiken’s Design Review Board

Marginalizing A Popular Viewpoint

Share this:

Share this: