Tag Archives: Aiken Municipal Development Commission

The $9.6 Million AMDC “Land Bank,” One Year Later

Part 1: The Aiken Standard Chooses a Path. 

by Don Moniak

November 4, 2022

One year ago yesterday, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) announced its intention to “acquire significant property in the downtown area,” and a planned vote on the proposed purchase during its November 9, 2021 meeting. The announcement came less than three months after Aiken City Council had approved a $10 million municipal bond issuance in support of the AMDC purchasing properties in the “Parkway District,” an arrangement City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh described at the time as a “land bank.” 

The AMDC did not identify the properties in its news release, leaving those details to the Aiken Standard by providing the paper with advance copies of meeting agenda materials; most notably the Purchase and Sale agreements.  On the same day as the AMDC announcement, Standard reporter Colin Demarest described the properties to be purchased for $9.5 million as: 

the languished Hotel Aiken and neighboring motel, businesses on Richland Avenue, the former Playoffs Sports Bar, Warneke Cleaners, Newberry Hall and three shops on Laurens Street.” 

The first story of the $9.6 million AMDC purchase of the Pacalis project properties.

The Standard did identify by name the three existing shops on Laurens Street, and the four businesses operating on Richland Avenue–of which only the Taj Aiken Restaurant remains today. But not until July 2022, in an article examined in “The Project Pascalis Evictees,” did the paper report again on the nine businesses being forced by their local city government to close or relocate.

Demarest did manage to report, deeper within the article:

The Aiken Chamber of Commerce intervened in May, documents show, and salvaged contracts critical to the redevelopment effort.” 

That single sentence was the first time the Aiken Standard mentioned the involvement of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce. It was also the last time the Chamber’s role was mentioned for more than eight months. The paper has never provided details of the Chamber’s deep involvement in salvaging the land deal in May, 2021 (1); a move that bailed out the first Pascalis project developer Weldon Wyatt. 

Two days after his first story Demarest quoted J. David Jameson, not as an AMDC Commissioner who was instrumental in the furtive May 2021, dealmaking, but as the Chamber of Commerce President. This pattern continued with a December 3, 2021 article announcing the selection of RPM Development Partners, LLC as the AMDC’s “preferred developer” for its $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment effort originally code-named Project Pascalis in March 2021. 

Whether the self-censorship was related to Aiken Standard publisher Rhonda Overbey’s role as a Chamber board member is unknown. As reported in “The Influencer’s Meetings,” Overbey was also one of 113 people on an “influencers” list who were invited to private, invitation-only meetings with the second Pascalis project developer in early January, 2022. 

What is known is the the November 4th announcement was also accompanied by an op-ed by the Standard’s editorial board, titled “Downtown Aiken Entering the Age of Enlightment.” The board was all in for Project Pascalis, before any significant details were known: 

This is no joke and there isn’t a punchline; we think it’s going to happen. And happen huge. The marketing buzz words seem to be bold action. We like it…It’s time for triumph.” 

This editorial praising the project ran the same day the story broke.

Project Pascalis was not the first major project during which the Aiken Standard’s news coverage appeared distorted by its editorial position. The city’s hospitality tax and Aiken School District bond referendums enjoyed the same journalistic approach. But the Pascalis coverage lowered the bar for minimizing scrutiny of a megaproject involving tens of millions of dollars of public funds.

For example, not until August, 2022, did the Aiken Standard file a Freedom of Information Act request to the City of Aiken for Pascalis related records. And, during a public Zoom meeting in late June, 2022, the lack of investigative zeal was reflected when Standard staffers repeatedly employed the phrase “the City says,” while avoiding the phrase “We asked the City.” 

____________________

FOOTNOTE

(1) As reported in “The AECOM Plan:”

“The first Pascalis project collapsed in early May (2021) 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.

A day later O’Briant and AMDC Treasurer and Chamber of Commerce President David Jameson had lunch with Weldon Wyatt, his investment and development partner Thomas “Chip” Goforth, and GAC Management Services employee Ryan Bland, who two weeks earlier had still held the position of City of Aiken Planning Director. O’Briant described that meeting as follows: 

David Jameson and I went to lunch with Weldon, Ryan, and Chip. Weldon continues to promote the benefits of 100 percent public funding of the entire project, but now says he doesnt’ intend to participate in the cost or the proceeds—just wants a fee/commission for the project to be successful. This despite bringing in a potential private partner with money to spend just yesterday. He is somewhat cagey and defensive and says he believes I have conveyed messages not representative of the City’s position. Indicates he believes there is some possibility the city council would accept the deal that I rejected Friday. Indicates Lessie (Price) is setting up the Thursday meeting to get everyone in one room to verify my position does not reflect that of leadership.

After that point the known paper trail ends, and the outcome of any meeting set up by Council member Lessie Price is unknown. What is known is:

  • On May 10, 2021, Aiken City Council met in closed door Executive Session for nearly two hours to discuss a range of topics, including “a possible purchase of real estate” and “a possible contractual arrangement with a real estate developer.” The outcome of that meeting was not summarized during the subsequent public session. 
  • On May 14, 2021 the Aiken Chamber of Commerce took assignment of the purchase and sale contract for the Shah’s suite of properties; and then on June 3rd took assignment, of the Anderson (Newberry Hall) contract. In all, the Chamber reimbursed Wyatt’s firms $135,000 of otherwise nonrefundable earnest money managed by City Attorney Gary Smith’s law firm. From that point, the AMDC secretly referred to the properties as “AMDC controlled.” 
  • In August 2021 Aiken City Council approved a $10 million bond issuance in support of AMDC property acquisitions in the “Parkway District,” with the AECOM Plan’s reference to “fragmented property ownership” a key justification in the supporting bond documents. 
  • AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, whose letter to City Council urging the bond passage included citations from the AECOM plan, also wrote in a July 26, 2022 letter to the Historic Aiken Foundation: “The AMDC first pursued the purchase of the property in question and those adjacent to it at the behest of Aiken City Council.” 

There is no record of Aiken City Council asking the AMDC to purchase the Pascalis project properties. Any such request made in closed-door, Executive Session would constitute a serious violation of Open Meetings law, which dictate that no votes are to be taken in Executive Session. 

When questioned about the origin of this unsubstantiated statement, neither Chairman Wood nor Tim O’Briant have offered any reply.”

A Citizen’s Statement on Project Pascalis

Delivered before Aiken City Council on October 24, 2022

Aiken resident Bruce Stemerman delivered the following statement before Aiken City Council on Monday, October 24, 2022. He was one of several citizens to speak before Council during the public meeting.

My name is Bruce Stemerman. I live on Chime Bell Church Road. My wife and I moved to Aiken just a few months ago. Similar to many others who have moved here over the years, Aiken’s delightful downtown district was an important contributing factor in our decision to relocate here from Charleston, SC.

I was dismayed by the Project Pascalis from the first I learned of it. I was able to get up to speed on the proposed plans thanks to the outstanding  and thorough reporting in the Aiken Chronicles, the Do It Right group, among others, and conversations with lots of concerned citizens. I felt the project proposed for the very heart of the City’s downtown was way out of scale and if developed would have a material adverse impact on what makes downtown Aiken unique, distinctive and attractive. Something I should add — the community’s impressive activism on this topic has only reinforced our decision about relocating here. 

I believe the main focus should be on restoring and renovating the Hotel Aiken.  It will no doubt be a challenging project, but no more so than the multitude  of similar restoration projects undertaken around this state, country, and world every year. Those who attended the Historic Aiken Foundation’s excellent Preservation Workshop on September 28th heard from noted experts, including a son of Aiken, about the significant and long term benefits associated with preserving and celebrating historic buildings. It was very persuasive and supported by considerable factual research, and I assume that all of you either attended in person or have watched the video. I hope that’s the case. 

So here’s what I would do if I ruled the world, and that would be a scary thing, I admit it, but here’s what I would do. 

Number one, I’d take immediate steps to prevent and mitigate any further deterioration to the main Hotel Aiken building; number two, provide support and financial assistance for the several small local businesses which have been significantly and negatively impacted by the uncertainty from the threatened demolition of the spaces they operate in;  and three, issue a request for proposal for the renovation, restoration, and management of the Hotel Aiken. 

These steps will enhance the legacy of this council, in my view, as will abandoning any further consideration of a multi-level parking garage and a superflouous conference center in downtown Aiken. 

You may also want to consider these questions relating to the AMDC: 

– Has that committee served this Council and the community well?
– Has it positively impacted the goodwill between City government and the citizens it serves?
– Did the committee follow established City policies and procedures? 
– Has it failed to carry out its own mission? 

When you think about the time, energy and dollars wasted by the AMDC, I hope you’ll conclude that it should be dissolved. 

My sincere appreciation of the council for this opportunity to express my views.

Mr. Stemerman’s statement to Aiken City Council begins shortly after minute 15:15 on the video below.

Cancelled, Stopped, On Hold, Terminated, or Ongoing?

The Shifting Status of Project Pascalis: per The Defendants

by Don Moniak

October 24, 2022

Defendants in three lawsuits regarding Project Pascalis have offered multiple versions of the current project status in the past month, suggesting the project is in another transition phase between developers. Since September 14, 2022, the following statements have been made, in their order: 

  • Developer is forced to hereby exercise its rights to terminate the Agreement,” but “would like to continue to participate in the ongoing development of this project.” (Attorney James Myrick for RPM) 
  • “Amend that motion now to say that we declare the existing contract null and void and we propose to cancel the redevelopment plan.” (AMDC)
  • “The AMDC is terminating all planning work with the current developer and hopefully plans to restart the planning process.” (Keith Wood) 
  • This process is still ongoing.” (Tim O’Briant)
  • This redevelopment plan is currently on hold.” (Stuart Bedenbaugh)
  • Because the Developer also purported to cancel the project.” (Attorneys for Chris Verenes) 
  • Project Pascalis has been terminated“ (Proposed Aiken City Council Ordinance). 

Since May 9, 2022 three lawsuits have been filed against the City of Aiken for all or parts of Project Pascalis. (1) The city is being represented in the first two lawsuits by the local firm of Nance and McCants. At the present time, there are fourteen lawyers from eight different firms (2) representing twenty-eight different defendants in the more expansive Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit filed on July 5, 2022.  WIth so many lawyers defending so many people and organizations, it should come as no surprise that the defendants are sending mixed messages regarding the status of Project Pascalis and seven properties owned by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) .

On October 19, 2022, attorneys for Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) Vice Chairman Chris Verenes joined the Blake et al proceedings and filed a Motion to Dismiss Mr. Verenes as an individual and only hold the commission as the defendant. (City of Aiken counsel Daniel Plyler argued the same for City Council, that the city should be the defendant, not the individual council members.) 

Notable in the Verenes filing is an argument that the case is now moot because: 

At its last meeting, the Commission passed a resolution to (a) stop the redevelopment project commonly known as Project Pascalis, (b) declare the purported existing contract with Defendant RPM Development Partners, LLC dated December 3, 2021, null and void, and (c) cancel the Redevelopment Plan One for Downtown Aiken, dated July 10, 2020. (See Exhibit 2, Commission Minutes (September 29, 2022).” 

The first problem with this statement is two-fold. First, the September 29th meeting minutes cited are an unapproved draft, since the commission has not met since the 29th to approve its minutes. Second, the draft minutes are inaccurate, even misidentifying who made and who seconded the motion. An actual transcript of the meeting from a video taken by a watchful citizen, reads: 

Keith Wood: There is a continued motion uh that was uh continued from the last meeting that has been discussed. Uh, that motion says that we will stop project pascalis and declare the purported existing contract null and void with RPM and we propose to either amend or cancel the redevelopment plan.”

Is there a motion to move?

Commissioner Philip Merry:  Yes sir Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend further amend that motion um to now say that we declare the existing contract null and void and we propose to cancel the redevelopment plan. 

Commissioner Douglas Slaughter:  Second.

In the final, amended motion, the word “purported” was removed; the cancellation of the unnamed redevelopment plan was “proposed” and not final; and because the final oral motion not repeated for clarity and is not in writing, it is unclear whether the motion actually contains the phrase “Stop Project Pascalis.”

The second problem with the Verenes motion is it adds to the inconsistency of other statements put forth by various defendants; beginning with the developer’s termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the seven AMDC-owned Project Pascalis properties.

The Developers Position 

On September 14, 2022, one day before the deadline to recoup its earnest money, RPM Development Partner attorney James Myrick wrote in a letter to the AMDC:

Developer is forced to hereby exercise its rights to terminate the Agreement and to require reimbursement of Developer’s costs and expenses by the Commission.” 

But in his final paragraph, Myrick left open the possibility of an RPM return: 

We have appreciated the opportunity to work with the Commission and the City of Aiken and would like to continue to participate in the ongoing development of this project. We believe that our experience and expertise can be valuable to the Aiken community, and we look forward to responding to any new revised project proposal from the Commission when the time comes and hopefully working with you to advance the revised project.” 

The developer’s attorneys further used this letter of termination to argue in a September 30th Motion to Dismiss RPM and Raines that “Defendant RPM Development Partners, LLC terminated its contract with the City of Aiken relating to Project Pascalis.”

The Chairman’s Position

On September 29th, AMDC Chair Keith Wood wrote in an individual statement that “the AMDC voted to stop Project Pascalis, declare the existing contract with the developer null and void, and cancelled the Redevelopment Plan,” a plan that is not the commission’s to cancel. (3) The statement was written before the amended motion was approved.

Wood also added the AMDC “hopefully plans to restart the procurement process.” 

Portion of statement made by AMDC Chair Keith Wood on 9/29. “Cancel” written by Keith Wood.
The Economic Development Director’s Position 

Although Wood declared fealty to South Carolina’s Community Development Law (SC 31 Chapter 10), that commitment quickly waivered into noncompliance in terms of Part 160(a) of the law: “The books and records of a commission are at all times open and subject to inspection by the public.”

On October 6,  inspections of all AMDC books and records were denied by Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant barring a Judge’s order. O’Briant confirmed (4) the following position pertaining to procurement information and cancelled Purchase and Sale Agreement with RPM Development Partners, LLC: 

The AMDC will not release any information pertaining to any agreements between the AMDC and RPM Development Partners until a deed is executed–even though there is no existing contracts and no proposed sale. The position of the city is that this process is ongoing and therefore FOIA exemptions #5 and #9 still apply. Even though there is no redevelopment plan, solicitations may still occur and release of information would provide competitive information to bidders.”

The City Manager’s Position 

In an October 13, 2022 Addidavit submitted to the Second Judicial Circuit of South Carolina in response to the Johnson and Cornelius lawsuits—but lacking any associated motion—City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh stated the redevelopment plan (still unnamed) is “on hold” and that only “key portions” of the the project were rescinded. 

From: 10/13/2022 Stuart Bedenbaugh Affidavit
Aiken City Council’s Position

On Monday, October 24th Aiken City Council will hold the first reading of an ordinance repealing the Newberry Street privatization ordinance passed on May 9, 2022 which describes Project Pascalis as “terminated.” 


No clarification has been forthcoming from city officials who seem more eager to escape from expensive, damaging, and effective litigation than to put forth a unified and consistent message, and also comply with anti-corruption laws governing access to records, conflicts of interest, and fair, competitive procurement of services. 

Instead, the developer has indicated a strong willingness to return; the AMDC chair has stated a preference to move forward with another procurement process; the city’s Economic Development Director claimed the process is ongoing; the City Manager wrote the plan is on hold; City Council has only acknowledged that the contract, and not the project, is terminated; and now the AMDC Co-Chair has separate legal counsel from that being provided by the AMDC. 

________________

Footnotes 

(1) Three lawsuits have been filed: 

a. On May 9, 2022 Kelly Cornelius filed a civil appeal complaint against Aiken City Council in the Court of Common Pleas alleging public notification violations and state ethics law violations by City Attorney Gary Smith for failing to recuse himself during the March 28, 2022 Aiken City Council hearing for an ordinance to privatize a portion of Newberry Street.

In response, City of Aiken attorneys from the law firm of Nance and McCant’s filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the suit was filed in the wrong jurisdiction. No denials of conflict of interest allegations were made. 

b. On May 9, 2022, John “Drew” Johnson filed a civil appeal complaint against Aiken City Council, Mayor Rick Osbon, City Attorney Gary Smith, and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, in the Court of Common Pleas. Johnson also alleged a conflict of interest involving City Attorney Gary Smith for failing to recuse himself during the March 28, 2022 Aiken City Council hearing regarding the partial privatization of Newberry Street as an integral part of Project Pascalis. 

The same response from the same legal firm as Cornelius vs Aiken City Council was made. Again, City of Aiken attorneys did not dispute the allegation, and sought to have the case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. 

c. On July 5, 2022. David W. Blake, Luis E. Rinaldini, Dudley Richard Dewar, Jenne Stoker, Beatrice B. McGhee, Gail King, Historic Aiken Foundation, Inc., Green Boundary Foundation, and the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation, filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas, Second Judicial Circuit of South Carolina, against the City of Aiken. The lawsuit named twenty-eight defendants ranging from Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon to RPM Developers,LLC. 

(2) The following firms and attorneys are representing various city officials and bodies in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, in order of appearance

Firm; and LocationAtttorney Clients
Nance and McCants; AikenClark McCants III, Clark McCants IV Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith 
Smith-Robinson, ColumbiaDaniel Plyler, Rachel LeeCity of Aiken, Mayor Rick Osbon, and City Council members 
Lindemann and Davis; Columbia Andrew LindemannDesign Review Board (DRB) and seven DRB members 
James Holley; LandrumJames HollyDRB and members 
David MorrisonDavid Morrison AMDC and commissioners
Davidson, Wren, and Demasters; Columbia. Michael Wren Tim O’Briant 
Womble Bond and Dickinson; CharlestonCharles J. Baker, Molly McDermid, James MyrickRPM Development Partners, LLC; and Raines Company
Nelson Mullins of ColumbiaDwight Drake, Matt Abee, and Madison Guyton Chris Verenes, in his capacity as Vice Chairman and a member of the AMDC


Additional court filings submitted to date include the following:

Osbon, In His Capacity As Mayor, and City CouncilMotion/Protection from Discovery 8/22/2022-09:50
Mayor and City CouncilExhibit B: Discovery Documents
Blake, David W.Service/Acceptance Of Service on Raines Company08/17/2022-08:19
City Of AikenAnswer/Answer08/15/2022-22:45
City Of AikenMotion/Dismiss08/15/2022-22:23
Smith, GaryAnswer/Answer08/11/2022-14:54
Blake, David W.Service/Acceptance Of Service on Rpm Development Partners, LLC08/08/2022-14:41
Blake, David W.Service/Acceptance Of Service on Aiken Design Review Board07/28/2022-09:02
Smith, GaryService/Acceptance Of Service on Gary Smith07/12/2022-14:53
Blake, David W.Summons & Complaint07/05/2022-10:24

(3) After the motion was passed, Chairman Wood was asked which redevelopment plan was referred to in the motion to cancel. The reply was “Redevelopment Plan One” a plan that itself is alleged to be illegal in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit.

Unlike Project Pascalis, “Redevelopment Plan One” does not identify any properties for demolition and proposes only to renovate Hotel Aiken;
does not privatize a portion of Newberry Street; and does not require relocating existing businesses.

The state’s Community Development Law also requires redevelopment plans to undergo a public hearing by the commission and subsequent approval by the commission’s governing body—in this case Aiken City Council. The AMDC failed to hold a public hearing, and Aiken City Council adopted Redevelopment Plan One via a resolution and not through a publicly noticed ordinance reading.

Since Redevelopment Plan One was not approved in compliance with SC Community Development Law, and Aiken City Council only needs to undergo the formality of rescinding its resolution to approve the noncompliant document.

(4) The entire email from Tim O’Briant confirming various city positions: 

What is the Status on the Pascalis Developers?

by Don Moniak
September 13, 2022

The developers for the $100 milllion plus, city-led downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis have been missing from public view for nearly three months. The last public meeting attended by members of the Raines and Lat Purser Companies was June 21, 2022. 

On June 29, 2022 a demolition application for AMDC-owned Newberry Hall, Warneke Cleaners, the McGhee Building, Taj Aiken Restaurant, and the Holley House was withdrawn. (1) No progress reports have been issued since that time. 

Raines and Lat Purser comprise two-thirds of RPM Development Partners, LLC, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission’s (AMDC) choice for the sale, demolition, and redevelopment of seven properties purchased by the AMDC in November, 2021. Raines and Lat Purser lead the entirety of the design and demolition application efforts.

The other third of the group is led by Ray Massey. Massey is the agent for RPM; but his otherwise anonymous group has no reported large-scale development capabilities. Massey is also the agent and lead investor for Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC, which owns the former State Farm office parcel on Newberry Street, a vital part of the Pascalis Project also slated for demolition prior to the application withdrawal. 

RPM holds a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with the AMDC that contains a deadline for completing and signing a Master Development Agreement to move forward on the Pascalis project. Claiming the exact deadline date is a subject of litigation, the AMDC has refused to specify the deadline date, which until now has only been vaguely defined as “no later than Summer 2022.”

On September 13th City of Aiken Solicitor Laura Jordan denied a Freedom of Information Act request for a redacted version of the PSA, claiming the entirety of the document is “subject to exemption as it relates to the sale of the property and efforts to attract investment. In light of the foregoing, and the fact that the agreement remains under negotiation, the City and AMDC have determined to exempt the requested document from disclosure.” (2)

Following the unexpected September 9, 2021 AMDC meeting and subsequent vote to hold a vote on the future of Project Pascalis the week of September 26, 2022 (3), the following letter was sent to Raines Hospitality Group CEO Grey Raines. 

Mr. Raines, 

1. Has your firm withdrawn from Project Pascalis? 

2. Is the purchase and sale agreement (PSA) with the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) null and void as a result of RPM Development Partners, LLC not reaching a final Master Development Agreement with the AMDC by the deadline specified in the PSA? 

3. If so, does this account for the absence of Raines and RPM from filings (other than a notice of acceptance from yourself) in the July 5, 2022 Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit? 

Today the Aiken Standard reported the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) will hold a vote on the future of Project Pascalis on September 26, 2022. The AMDC nearly ended the project today, but Chamber of Commerce President and AMDC Commissioner David Jameson intervened with an amended motion to postpone a final vote, pending “due diligence.” (4)

The motion by AMDC member Chris Verenes was described by the Standard in part as “declaring a purported contract null and void.” This was a curious, unsubstantiated statement. It is well known there is a purchase and sale agreement between RPM Development Partners, LLC and the AMDC for the seven properties in the Pascalis project demolition and redevelopment zone. 

As I reported on August 29, 2022, the deadline for moving forward on that agreement was approaching or even past: 

“The MDA necessary for any future work appears to be still in negotiations, and time is running short. On December 3, 2021, the AMDC wrote 

‘The initial 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.’ 

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.” (5)

Now add to this the following additional facts, and we have all the appearances of a stalemate or an exit by RPM, Raines, and/or Lat Purser:

–RPM and Aiken Alley Holdings have not submitted an updated demolition application to remove Taj Resaurant, the McGhee Building, Warneke Cleaners, and Newberry Hall from the landscape;

— the absence of both RPM and Raines from the lawsuit; and 

—Raines and Lat Purser’s original, June 2021 proposal stated “the 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.”

After nearly a year of debating this project, Aiken area residents deserve some straight answers, and cannot expect them from the AMDC. Questions 1-3 are simple, yes/no questions you could answer to possibly clarify the situation. Any additional details are always welcome. 

Thank You, 

Donald Moniak
Researcher/Writer
PO Box 112
Vaucluse, SC 29850

____________

FOR REFERENCE

1. “Project Pascalis Demolition Application Withdrawn, Not Postponed.” The Aiken Chronicles, June 30, 2022. 

2. Response to Freedom of Information Act request from Aiken City Solicitor Laura Jordan to Donald Moniak. September 13, 2022. 

3. “A Vote Without a Decision: A Transcript.” The Aiken Chronicles. September 12, 2022. 

4 https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/local-government/aiken-municipal-development-commission-to-vote-sept-26-on-halting-project-pascalis/article_8285619e-307e-11ed-8e20-6f7720c6c480.html?fbclid=IwAR3Vljfn3Yxuco6_yqDIKNIxdwbBbnf00oTVkqmMzTLukCcLV51hV7FkEYg

5 https://aikenchronicles.com/2022/08/29/a-project-pascalis-update/

Best estimates for names of redacted developers for May/June 2021 AMDC Solicitation for Proposals

A Vote Without a Decision: A Transcript

Project Pascalis is Punted Two Weeks Down the Road

by Don Moniak
September 12, 2022

On Friday, September 9, 2022, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) met for the first time in three months. For more than three hours, the Commission met in a closed door, Executive Session to discuss legal issues pertaining to its beleaguered, $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment effort in downtown Aiken known as Project Pascalis. The notification of a special Executive Session meeting was made on September 8 — at which time the commission also cancelled its scheduled September 13th meeting.  

It is uncertain who was in the Executive Session, and the discussion remains confidential. But after leaving “Executive Committee,” five of the six remaining original voting members entered into a public session that lasted less than three minutes. (Three other commissioners have no vote because they are not city residents, and were appointed to the positions in contradiction of City law). 

The brief public session was marked by: 

  • A reference to an Executive Session decision to take action, even though voting during Executive Sessions is illegal; 
  • A puzzling description of the contract with Pascalis project developer RPM Development Services as “purported;’ 
  • An implicit acknowledgement that the AMDC violated South Carolina’s Community Development Law;” and
  • A seconded motion to stop Project Pascalis overruled by a motion to amend, without any vote on the original motion. 

The meeting was taped by a member of the public.

The following transcript is now provided: 

AMDC Chair Keith Wood: Okay so we’ve taken the appropriate action to come out of Executive Committee and we are now in public session of the AMDC Meeting of September the ninth. We have decided to take some action. So I will entertain a motion relative to the action that we discussed.

Vice Chair Chris Verenes: Mr Chairman, I make a motion that we stop Project Pascalis, that we declare the purported existing contract null and void, and thirdly we propose to either amend or cancel the redevelopment plan so we can follow South Carolina Community Development Law.” 

Chairman Wood: I second that motion. 

Chairman Wood: Discussion? 

(5 seconds pass). 

Commissioner David Jameson: Mr Chairman, I agree with this motion but based on our counsel’s recommendation and additional due diligence that I feel like is needed I’d like to motion to amend to continue this to the week of September 26th.” 

Commissioner Doug Slaughter: I second that motion.

Chairman Wood: Any discussion? 

For the record we have Philip Merry on the phone, who is a Commissioner. We also have Stuart McVean here. Stuart technically is not a voting member of the Commission, but he has been involved and engaged in this process from Day one. His opinion is extremely valuable to us, which is why he is here but he cannot vote.

So we have a seconded motion, is there any discussion before we take a vote? 

Okay, all in favor of accepting the approval of the amended motion David Jameson laid out please say Aye.

(Only Ayes are heard) 



Chairman Wood: We have a full majority of the quorum that we have here today. That is all the action we will take today. We will set a meeting time the week of September 26to further discuss David’s motion. 

[Meeting Adjourned].

Thus, the AMDC punted their decision to an undefined date that is likely to be announced at the last possible moment.