Tag Archives: Aiken Municipal Development Commission

Farmers Market - Williamsburg St Project, July 2023

Whose Project is it again? …. Bueller?

5 Comments

By Kelly Cornelius

I attended the June 26th, 2023 City Council meeting to put my questions and concerns regarding the Williamsburg Street tree massacre, or “mistake” as the City has termed it, on the record. I wondered: Just whose project is it?

Below is the transcript from that meeting.

Transcript

Kelly Cornelius: My name is Kelly Cornelius. I came down this evening with concerns about the Williamsburg Street tree massacre as well. I was able to find a report on the AMDC’s website that is still up, and it’s called the Williamsburg final draft report, and that was done by a company named Origin Landscape Architecture. I looked them up. They were dissolved, like the AMDC, but they were dissolved earlier on February 3, 2022. I also read the award letter that was posted on the Facebook page of the Aiken Chronicles, and it was dated February 15, 2023, and it awarded $1.4 million to Quality Plus services, and it referenced a December 15, 2022 due date for the proposal. Now if you recall what was going on. December 15, 2022 the AMDC was down to a party of two because on December 14, I believe, is when Mr. Jameson put in his resignation.

The AMDC did not have a quorum when the proposal due date came about, so my question is, who awarded Quality Plus Services this project? Because we didn’t have an AMDC, and you all would not have your first meeting as the AMDC until March 13, 2023. When was the streetscape project transferred, and who was it transferred to? Because I’ve seen on the most recent Aiken corporation agenda there were two agenda items regarding the project. One was an update… there was just two things on there. So are they in control of it now? Are you in control of it now? Who is in control of the project. ?  

[silence] 

Kelly Cornelius: Anybody? …….Bueller? 

Stuart Bedenbaugh: We’ve always been

Rick Osborn:  Kelly…. [then, spoken under breath to Bedenbaugh, “I’m going to answer this”) We’re in control of it 

Kelly Cornelius: So it’s the City?

Stuart Bedenbaugh: And has been from the start. It’s been a CBDG project. It has never been an AMDC project, the project you reference. What, um… So anyway… it is….

Kelly Cornelius: On the sign it says AMDC out there, but now there’s a piece of tape over it. 

Stuart Bedenbaugh: Yes, I think that was related to the Jackson Petroleum property at Williamsburg, on the southeastern corner of that  — that was the AMDC component. The Parkway project that you referenced earlier has always been a CDBG project. The public hearing I referenced several minutes ago that was March 26, 2021 was held under the auspices of the Community Development Block Grant program,  so I wanna make that clear. It was not an AMDC project. That is just not correct.

Kelly Cornelius: So that report found on their website is not associated with this project at all?

Stuart Bedenbaugh: I don’t have the report in front of me, and I can’t answer that. I just don’t know. I mean, if you had reached out to me ahead of time I could have that answer. I will look and report that in the next issues an updates memo. 

Kelly Cornelius: I agree with what Ms. Lance said, I think it should be stopped until everybody is clear on this. 

Later, $100,000K worth of invoices were found from Cranston Engineering with checks attached for the Williamsburg Streetscape Improvements paid for by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission on their financials binder page.

Exhibit A:
Photo of first bill for $32K
Photo of last bill found on the AMDC Financials Binder

Notice that the Bid Phase (highlighted) in the contract amount column, below, is the only one not paid for. That bid process seems to have started after the AMDC was left without a quorum, as evidenced by the email below obtained in a recent FOIA request.

A review of a recent article in the Aiken Chronicles revealed this piece of the puzzle, which is a March 9th, 2023 invoice from Cranston for the same project showing the Bid Phase paid. While the invoice is addressed to the AMDC, it is now paid by the City of Aiken. The invoice also has the same project number as the AMDC paid bills.

Follow-up

Unable to find the March 26th, 2021 minutes referenced by City Manager Bedenbaugh, I emailed him on July 17th, 2023 asking him to provide a copy of them as well as requesting an explanation on the AMDC funding of the design portion of this project. So far no response has been received on my inquiry.

There is reference, however, in a 5/09/2022 City Council agenda CBDG Committee update to the loan being released for the Williamsburg St project, which stated “work is already in progress with consultants.”

So if this is strictly a City project why did the AMDC sign the checks for the design portion? Recall failed the Project Pascalis was funded by the City’s “Parkway” Bond but it was still an AMDC project.

To Review

Here is what we already knew before finding the cancelled AMDC checks:

a) A plan for the Williamsburg St Redevelopment Project was and is on the now dissolved AMDC’s website. This plan can be viewed here.

b) The sign at the scene of the tree massacres on Williamsburg St had an AMDC logo on it which later was taped over.

The City has since officially put the Williamsburg Streetscape project on pause, and, in this interview, Mr. Bedenbaugh was unwilling to point fingers as he took one one for the “team.”

In the wake of the past year’s losses, which include $9.6M for downtown properties encompassing a historic hotel that continues to rot, the loss of Public Trust and now the loss of some of our Tree City’s beloved parkway trees, it seems someone on this team should be held accountable. Why are citizens still having to ask the hard questions while officials refuse to do so?

___________________

Additional links

December 2022, Laws & Bylaws, Project Pascalis 2022

Chamber President Blames State Law for AMDC Failings

3 Comments

“Riddled With Contradictions and Nearly Insurmountable Obstacles.” 

by Don Moniak

December 22, 2022

J. David Jameson submitted his resignation (1) from the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) on December 14, 2022.   Jameson, who was was first appointed to the commission in September, 2020, remains in his position as President of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce. (2).

The resignation came five days after half of the remaining commissioners—Keith Wood, Chris Verenes, and Douglas Slaughter (2)—resigned; and two days after a previously unreported closed-door legal briefing “concerning the mechanics of the AMDC.” 

In his resignation letter, Jameson lambasted South Carolina’s Community Development Law, writing the “statute that governs the actions of the AMDC is riddled with contradictions and nearly insurmountable obstacles,” but did not provide any specific examples. 

According to former AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, the AMDC was not fully briefed on the governing statute until this past June. Neither Wood nor Verenes chose to criticize state law in their December 9th resignation letters or public statements of September 29, 2022; choosing instead to insist the law must be followed.  The September 29th statements came twenty days after Jameson forced an amendment to, and delay of, an AMDC motion to cancel Project Pascalis—-the first visible sign of a division on the commission.

Jameson also blamed the commission’s own bylaws for holding it “hostage,” claiming “with our current membership of three, we can meet but we cannot act.” But according to the AMDC’s governing statute, the SC Community Development Law, five members are required to hold a meeting and act, and no set of bylaws can override state law: 

“A commission may be governed by the members of the governing body of its parent municipality serving ex officio or by not less than five nor more than nine commissioners selected by the governing body of the municipality.” (SC 31-10-40). 

Jameson’s resignation letter also raises questions about the most recent Aiken City Council closed-door Executive Session, held on December 12, 2022. According to the public notice, the closed-door session was specifically to discuss: 

“1.Potential purchase of real property located in downtown Aiken.

2. A proposed contractual arrangement to lease property in downtown Aiken.”

The relationship of the “mechanics of the AMDC” and the proposed purchase of property is unknown. But considering the AMDC owns the seven downtown Pascalis project properties, and that these were packaged as a single property in its cancelled agreement with the Pascalis project developer,  it is possible the discussion involved not a purchase of property, but a transfer of the entire property from the AMDC to the City of Aiken. 

Upon questioning, City officials declined to name the property under secret discussion that evening. City Attorney Gary Smith stated “it is a downtown property, no information can be released if not all parties are ready to discuss it.” 

Not surprisingly, Jameson’s objections to state law come one year after he took the lead in organizing secret, invitation-only Pascalis project “influencer” meetings, in violation of the state’s Open Meeting statute prohibiting “circumvention of the spirit of (the law)” through a “chance meeting, social meeting, or electronic communication.”

Jameson was also instrumental in the decision to have the Chamber secretly take assignment of the Pascalis properties on behalf of the AMDC when the project’s first developer, Weldon Wyatt, exited the project in May, 2021.  The latter action set off a long domino effect of legally questionable behavior. Eventually, dozens of violations of state law were alleged in the July 5, 2022,  Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit that brought the sputtering Pascalis project effort to a standstill.  

Footnotes

(1) The previously unannounced resignation letter was obtained via a Freedom of Information Request by Aiken resident Kelly Cornelius. The full text of all five resignation letters obtained provided below. 



As reported in Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chair Chris Verenes Resign, Slaughter’s resignation was unnecessary and duplicative: 

“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.”

Stuart MacVean missed more than 1/2 of regular commission meetings in 2021. Despite continuing to attend a few meetings in 2022, according to the City Ordinance governing appointed positions, he was automatically removed on January 1, 2022.

(2) Jameson is one of two AMDC members who publicly commented on Project Pascalis during public meetings, but declined to identify their affiliation with the commission.

On April 20, 2022, Jameson spoke on behalf of the Chamber without disclosing his AMDC membership or the joint role the Chamber played in pursuing the project in 2021.

On May 9, 2022, Commissioner Philip Merry spoke as a private individual in favor of privatizing Newberry Street, but failed to disclose his AMDC membership.

Laws & Bylaws, November 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

The City of Aiken’s Information Games: Part II

7 Comments

Post-Publication Redaction  of the AMDC/RPM Contract

by Don Moniak

November 21, 2022

Within twenty-four hours of the publication of “Downtown Aiken Half Priced Sale,” the December 3, 2021 Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) between the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) and Project Pascalis developer RPM Development Partners, LLC (RPM) was removed from City of Aiken’s document repository. The withdrawal of the document from public view occurred in spite of the agreement —which was amended as late as June 2022 — being terminated by RPM on September 14, 2022 and rendered null and void two weeks later by the AMDC.

The December 3, 2021 agreement was publicly available, within a file titled “11302021 RES Municipal Dev. Com,” between October 21 and November 10, 2022. The file was within an AMDC folder called “other records” in the City of Aiken’s Laserfiche/Ecodocs records repository.  Amendments to the agreement remain an AMDC secret.

The file contained both the AMDC resolution to sell the properties and the Purchase and Sale Agreement. At 9:41 a.m. on November 11th the file was removed from view, less than one day after its availability had been publicized in The Aiken Chronicles.

“113022021 RES Municipal Dev. Com” was made publicly available on 10/21/22 and removed 11/11/22

The document detailed the conditions for the sale of the commission’s seven Pascalis project properties. The proposed sale price of $5 million was nearly half of the $9.5 million the commission paid on November 9, 2021.

The contract also allowed for a fifty percent cost reimbursement for project design; and set a price of $3 million for an AMDC buyback of the proposed city-owned conference center and parking garage:

“Seller, or its designee, shall be required to purchase the parking garage and conference center components thereof upon completion of the Redevelopment Project for a purchase price calculated based on ( i) Three Million and 00/ 100 Dollars ($ 3,000, 000. 00), representing the portion of the Purchase Price hereunder allocated to the land for the parking garage and conference center, plus (ii) the actual design, permitting and construction costs ( pursuant to a fixed price agreement
therefore) of the parking garage and conference center and a development fee to Purchaser equal to 5% of such costs.”

A $3 million AMDC buyback meant a net cost to the developer of $2 million for the purchase of the Hotel Aiken, the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens Street, and the portion of other properties dedicated to an apartment complex.

The AMDC signature page was signed by commission chairman
Keith Wood. The RPM signature page was signed by RPM investor and legal agent Ray Massey, who is one of Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith’s partners.

The commission obtained the money via a grant from the City of Aiken, which in turn raised the funds by borrowing it via a municipal bond issuance approved by ordinance on August 23, 2022. Gary Smith, acting as City Attorney and council parliamentarian during the bond issuance, was responsible for preparing the ordinance, and signed his approval.

The signature page for the $10 million bond issuance ordinance.



The day before the contract with RPM was signed, Wood expressed concern in an email to other commissioners about having Smith’s name on a news release announcing the agreement, writing,

“Do we have to mention the Massey law firm as written? I think having Smith’s name in the news release will raise unwanted questions.”

No justification has been given for the post-publication redaction. RPM terminated the agreement on September 14, 2022; and the commission voted unanimously on September 29, 2022, to declare the contract “null and void.” 

No other known purchase and sale agreements involving city property are considered too sensitive to publicly disclose—-even if that were an option. Examples of questionable real estate deals that were public knowledge before closing, and were open to public debate, include:

The agreement to sell the city’s Mattie Hall property to Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes law firm associate Scott Patterson. As reported in The City of Aiken’s Mattie Hall Property, the land the city sold for $150,000 was placed on the market for $700,000 two weeks after closing.

The agreement in January 2020 to sell the city’s Finance Building at 135 Laurens Street and the associated parking lot at 130 Pendleton St, SW for a collective $1.3 million to local investor Weldon Wyatt. As reported in The Cleaners, Wyatt then sold 135 Laurens St, SW one month later to SRP Credit Union for $1.3 million, and the parking lot a year later to R&O, LLC (Agent: Rick Osbon) for $500,000. 

The only previous justifications for keeping the RPM contract sealed, and for continuing to withhold Project Pascalis procurement records, are two South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions.

Exemption five states the government may withhold documents “Incidental to proposed contractual arrangements and documents of and documents incidental to proposed sales or purchases of property.”  
(SC 30-4-40(5)).

Although the exemption ends “once a contract is entered into or the property is sold or purchased,” the law also allows for continued exemption “until the deed is executed, but this exemption applies only to those contracts of sale or purchase where the execution of the deed occurs within twelve months from the date of sale or purchase.” 

As reported on October 24, 2022, former AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant (1) argued that since the deed was never executed, the contract remained exempt from disclosure. Since November 1, 2022, AMDC Chairman Keith Wood (2) has declined to answer requests to review commission records.

Exemption nine states the governmment may withhold “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.” (SC 30-4-40(9)).

These records are not exempt after the offer to attract an industry or business is accepted and the “public announcement of the project or finalization of any incentive agreement, whichever occurs later.” 

The AMDC is relying upon the strictest interpretation of the state’s open records law to continue to withhold key information pertaining to Project Pascalis. But by any reasonable assessment, the continued secrecy surrounding the December 3, 2021, RPM Purchase and Sale Agreement, and subsequent amendments, is another indication that the AMDC plays by its own set of rules. After spending more than than $10 million of taxpayer funds to pursue Project Pascalis, the commission is essentially arguing that Project Pascalis contracts and procurement records are exempt from public disclosure because their project failed.

_______________


Footnotes


(1) Tim O’Briant was as an editor at the Aiken Standard from 2000-2016 and once testified to the South Carolina General Assembly on behalf of FOIA reform. After spending a year as an editor with The Brunswick News, in 2017 he was hired by the City of Aiken as its Communications Manager; and in 2019 was promoted to Director of the City’s new Economic Development Department. In November, 2021, he received a certification as an Economic Development Professional from the SC Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Institute.

From March 2021, to September 2022 he was the face and spokesperson for the Pascalis project, and was one of two people authorized to negotiate with developers and sign checks for commission expenditures.

O’Briant is no longer listed on the list of AMDC staff at aikenmdc.org. His unannounced removal from the commission’s staff followed unproven accusations by AMDC members Keith Wood and Chris Verenes that unnamed staff had deceived Wood into signing the December 3, 2021 contract with RPM prior to the release of a Request for Proposals. Details on this series of events can be found in The Project Pascalis “RFP.”

He reportedly remains employed as the City of Aiken’s Economic Development Director. As detailed in Part One of The City of Aiken’s Information Games, in that capacity he led efforts to obstruct access to Project Pascalis records.

(2) Keith Wood is an original AMDC member. He was appointed to the AMDC in early 2020 and has served as the Chairman of the AMDC since September, 2020. Along with Tim O’Briant, he was one of two people authorized to negotiate with Project Pascalis developers and authorize expenditures.

Wood is employed by Amentum Corporation as Vice President of Marketing and Communications in the company’s Nuclear Security Group.



City Government, In the Demolition Zone, November 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

Acts of Neglect

15 Comments

November 18, 2022 email from Don Moniak to the Aiken Design Review Board.

Chairman Law, 

At last night’s (11/17/22) public workshop, the Design Review Board (DRB or Board) requested information about the condition of Pascalis project properties officially owned by the City of Aiken’s Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), and paid for with public funds.

Following are three lines of information for the Board to consider. The Board is charged with determining whether any properties warrant a designation of “demolition by neglect,” meaning the owners have permitted structures or property to:

“fall into a serious state of disrepair or to remain in a serious state of disrepair so as to result in the deterioration of any exterior architectural feature which would, in the judgment of the Commission, produce a detrimental effect upon the character of the structure or property, or, if the structure or property is in an Historic District, upon the district.”

1.  The AMDC chose to avoid last night’s public meeting, and its absence was an act of neglect. The commission is established by city ordinance, funded by the City of Aiken, and is mandated to work on behalf of the citizens of Aiken, who remain at the top of the city’s organizational chart. 

The failure of a single commissioner to attend was inexcusable, and only served to strengthen the public perception that demolition of its half of the block remains the commission’s only goal. 

2. The terminated Purchase and Sale Agreement between the AMDC and RPM Development Partners, which required the AMDC to: 

“manage and operate the Property in accordance with past practices and maintain the Improvements and the tangible Personal Property in substantially its current condition and repair, ordinary wear and tear excepted, to be delivered in a broom clean condition at Closing.”

 This PSA should provide one benchmark for evaluating how well the property owner, who was absent from last night’s proceedings, has maintained its properties.  Unless water damage from roof leaks are considered “ordinary wear and tear” then the AMDC failed to meet even this most basic contractual obligation.

The Hotel Aiken is not the only AMDC property with a leaking roof. The CC Johnson Drug Store had problems with leaks when the Shah family owned it, and a chimney remains covered with a mat held down by cinder blocks. What is the purpose of this low-tech arrangement? 

This situation was also featured in the AMDC’s 11/8/21 News Release, and not remedied until a year later. (Photo by Don Moniak, 10/9/22)

Beyond Bijou in the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens St, SW, reported another roof leak on its Facebook page on September 2nd.  

As an aside, this PSA is no longer publicly available. The City of Aiken removed it from its document repository within 24 hours of the publication of Downtown Aiken Half Price Sale on November 10, 2022. 

2. On November 8, 2022 the AMDC published a page of photographs showing the existing conditions of a few of its properties, but almost primarily the Hotel Aiken. 

Unfortunately, the AMDC purchased its properties in an “as-is” condition and did not have them appraised or inspected.  So the commission has no baseline for what the conditions were in the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens Street, SW, Taj Aiken Restaurant, and the McGhee Building when it wrote that: 

“From every angle, the area of Downtown that makes up the Project Pascalis footprint is in need of a refresh. This highly visible block of the central business district has fallen into disrepair, as the former owner’s plan to redevelop the Hotel Aiken and adjacent property has stalled.”

However, the photographs do provide a baseline of the conditions the AMDC willingly accepted when it spent $9.5 million of public funds on the seven properties. The Board could recruit volunteer, independent photographers to replicate these photos to see where conditions have worsened under the minimalist management approach of the AMDC, where they have remained the same, and where there might be an improvement. 

One example of how disrepair has remained in place is shown by a comparison of this photograph published on November 8th, that shows a boarded up window on the Laurens Street side of the Hotel Aiken. 

AMDC Photo. November 8, 2021.

And here is a similar view taken on November 17, 2022, with the same boarded window. The only differences are there are more leaves remaining on the Ginkgo tree this year, and the presence of the Voluntary Cleanup Contract sign. 

Photo: Don Moniak, November 17, 2022

Another November 8th photograph illustrated a tree growing out of a second floor window of the Beckman Building. As reported in “A Tree Disappears in Aiken,” the AMDC neglected for nine months to remedy this highly visible situation it cited as an example of disrepair. 

The Board should obtain the original photos from the AMDC and work to replicate some of them as part of its information gathering and analysis process—if one actually exists.  After all, Chairman Law collaborated with the Pascalis project manager to gather information to support the demolition application. 

As seen in this screenshot of Capstone Service’s February, 2022, work invoice, that collaboration included planning drone pictures of the Hotel that were shown at the Board’s Feburary 1, 2022 workshop. These photos could also be replicated to determine the degree of neglect this year. 

If the Chairman of the Design Review Board could work with the City’s Municipal Development Commission and Planning Deparment earlier this year to help build a case for demolition, then the Board as a whole should be willing to work with citizens–who fund the existence of the commission– to determine to what degree the Pascalis properties have been neglected to the detriment of downtown Aiken. It can then act in accordance with Section 5.1.8 of the municipal code, Ordinance 04142003A, which requires corrective actions and penalties for violations “of any provisions of this Chapter.” 

Thank You, 

Donald Moniak

aikenchronicles.com

Footnote:

The Aiken Chronicles is encouraging readers interested in the upkeep of the publicly owned Pascalis properties to submit suggestions on how the Design Review Board should proceed to eurekascresearch@gmail.com. This includes any pertinent information that should be gathered, and what non-neglect should look like.

The suggestions will be compiled and published; and presented to the Design Review Board. Anonymity is allowed.

In the Demolition Zone, Money Trails, November 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

Downtown Aiken Half Price Sale

5 Comments

AMDC Agreed to Sell Pascalis Properties for $5 Million. 

by Don Moniak

November 10, 2022

Without any public notice, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) has finally made public (1)  its December 3, 2021 Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with RPM Development Partners, LLC (RPM).  However, the AMDC has yet to release the amended version of the PSA that was completed in June, 2022. 

The AMDC purchased the seven Pascalis properties on November 9, 2021  for a total of $9.5 million, using a grant from the City of Aiken from its August, 2021, $10 million municipal bond issuance. The PSA with RPM was signed on December 3, 2021 by AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, and RPM authorized agent Ray Massey.

The AMDC refused to disclose the proposed sale price for the properties and denied Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the PSA as recently as September 13, 2022–one day before RPM terminated the agreement. The AMDC also refused to release the PSA in early October, stating the process was ongoing. 

According to the PSA, the AMDC proposed to sell the Berkman Building on Laurens Street, the Hotel Aiken, the Holley House, Taj Aiken Restaurant, the McGhee Building, Warneke Cleaners, and Newberry Hall for a collective $5 million— a 47% discount from the AMDC purchase price that would have resulted in a $4.5 million loss to the City of Aiken.

From December 3, 2021 Purchase and Sale Agreement Between RPM Development Partners, LLC and the AMDC


Other portions of the PSA included requirements that: 

  • The City of Aiken perform all changes to Newberry Street at no cost to RPM; including removal of parking spaces, relocation of southbound traffic lanes and stormwater drainage and other utilities. If the City of Aiken failed to agree to these terms, RPM had the right to require the AMDC to repurchase the properties for $5 million. 
  • The AMDC maintain insurance policies on all the  properties  and “manage and operate the Property in accordance with past practices and maintain the Improvements and the tangible Personal Property in substantially its current condition and repair, ordinary wear and tear excepted, to be delivered in a broom clean condition at Closing.” 
  • A Master Development Agreement be completed prior to closing that defined the purchaser’s requirements and set a repurchase price for the garage and conference center at $3 million. 

As reported in Portions Rescinded, But No Cancellation, RPM terminated the agreement on September 14, 2022, although that action was not publicly disclosed by the AMDC at the time. On September 29, 2022 the AMDC voted to render the agreement null and void, and commission members Keith Wood and Chris Verenes pinned blame for violations of South Carolina Community Development Law on unnamed “staff.” Since that time, longtime AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant was removed from the list of staff on the AMDC website.

In May 2022, the AMDC admitted that a “sole, one-time, financial incentive [for the developers] will be a discounted price for the property upon which they will build the hotel and apartments.” In light of the revelation that the discount was nearly a half-price sale, that statement might qualify as the top understatement of 2022 from the City of Aiken.

From the Purchase and Sale Agreement between RPM and AMDC, December 3, 2022.

Feature Photo is taken from Exhibit A on Page 29 of the PSA.

Exhibit A. Page 29. PSA between RPM and AMDC, December 3, 2022.
Also Available at: https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2762415&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

Followup story: The PSA is Removed from the City’s Document Repository.

FOOTNOTE:

(1) The document appears to have been posted at the City of Aiken’s Laserfiche ecodocs document repository on October 21, 2022; filed under “other documents” in the AMDC folder.

The City of Aiken has yet to respond to the following FOIA request, filed on September 29, 2022:

“A copy of the unredacted version of the attached document, Pascalis offers comparison_Redacted, located at: https://aikenmdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Pascalis-offers-comparison_Redacted.pdf 2. A copy of all documents related to “Pascalis proposal solicitation and RFP scoring“ not presently at https://aikenmdc.org/2022/03/29/project-pascalis-public-records/; including, but not limited to: a. All emails or other correspondence to prospective developers that accompanied the RFP package; b. All memorandums describing proposals; and c. All submitted proposals. Under SC Community Development Law, all records of the AMDC are to be made available for inspection. I am willing to inspect the files as is to reduce and eliminate search and retrieval time. SECTION 31-10-160. Availability of commission’s books, records, bylaws, rules, and regulations for public inspection; annual report of commission’s activities. (a) The books and records of a commission are at all times open and subject to inspection by the public.”