Tag Archives: Aiken Municipal Development Commission

June 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

A Project Pascalis Timeline

5 Comments

This is “a timeline,” regarding the creation, promotion, and stealth of the $100 million dollar plus downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis from February 2019 through June 2022. 

It is not “the timeline.” Due to the City of Aiken’s continued secrecy surrounding key aspects of Project Pascalis, gaps in knowledge remain. For example, the city still refuses to release its full May 2021 solicitation for a Request for Proposals. 

Therefore, it is unknown whether any option to renovate the Hotel Aiken was offered to prospective developers; although the evidence to date strongly suggests the only option was demolition. The importance of this key issue cannot be overstated: if the solicitation dictated what the city wanted, then Project Pascalis is a homegrown project and its developers are mere contractors undertaking the wishes of its client. 

February 2019 

February 1: : Weldon and Tom Wyatt of “Wyatt Development” (which was dissolved in 2013) meets with Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon to discuss his $1.1 million offer to Aiken County to purchase the 9.3 acre “old hospital” and county administrative building property at 828 Richland Avenue, E. for $1.1 million 

February 5: Mayor Osbon sends letter to Aiken County Chairman Gary Bunker describing his meeting with Wyatt executives and expressing his support for their vision for the old hospital property. 

February 19: WTC Investments, LLC is registered as doing business in South Carolina with the Secretary of State. Attorney Ray Massey is the listed agent. (Unknown: presence of absence of Mr. Massey at February 1 meeting with Mayor.)

April 2019 

April 16: WTC Investments, LLC enters into a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) with Aiken County to purchase the “old hospital” property at 828 Richland Avenue, E. for $1.1 million dollars.  

WTC manager Tom Wyatt, son of Weldon Wyatt, announces plan to demolish existing historic structures and construct a new hotel, apartment complex, conference center, and parking garage. 

August 2019

Ordinance establishing the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) passed by Aiken City Council and governed by South Carolina Community Development Law. Citizens told Commission will enable increased public input and participation in planning process. 

November 2019: 

Aiken City Council passes rezoning ordinance approving the Wyatts’ concept plan for the old hospital/County complex site. 

January 2020

January 12: WTC Attorney Ray Massey informs Aiken County officials they are withdrawing from the old hospital purchase contract.

May 2020

May 26, 2020 First meeting of the AMDC. Commissioners receive tutorials on the Freedom of Information Act, Ethics, and South Carolina Community Development Law. (In the next twenty four months the Commission, always meeting at 3:30 pm, would enter into closed executive sessions forty percent of their meeting time. During the Pascalis planning and negotiations this figure increased to more than sixty percent.) 

July 2020 

July 15: The Aiken Municipal Development Commission submits a “Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Aiken” to the City of Aiken. The plan does not include properties on Newberry Street currently inhabited by Newberry Hall and Warneke Cleaners. No public hearing is held by the Commission as required by community development law. 

August 2020

August 31. Attorney General Alan Wilson announces a $600 million dollar settlement to more than four years of litigation with the Department of Energy regarding storage of surplus nuclear weapons plutonium at the Savannah River Site. Wilson states that after attorney fees of $75 million, $525 million remains for the legislature to allocate. 

August 2020. Aiken City Council approves first reading of the downtown redevelopment plan. 

September 2020

September 14: Aiken City Council amends the AMDC ordinance, replacing three City Council members with three new voting members, and reclassifying council members as ex-officio. Chamber of Commerce President J. David Jameson, former city councilperson Philip Merry, and Second Baptist Church pastor Douglas Slaughter are added as voting commissioners. 

Second reading of minor redevelopment plan passes. 

September 2020 to December 2020: AMDC discusses plutonium funding lobbying efforts. A letter requesting $30 million for redevelopment purposes is sent to the legislative delegation and other officials. 

January 2021. 

January 4: WTC Investments, LLC dissolves. 

Unknown date in early 2021: WTC Investments, LLC signs contract to purchase Hotel Aiken, and the adjacent motel, 106 Laurens Street, the former Johnson Drug Store, and Warneke Cleaners from Shah Investments and other Shah family holdings. 

March 2021: 

March 15: Royal J. Robbins and Garnett Family Holdings sell 210 The Alley to Aiken Alley Holdings LLC for $2,025,000. Ray Massey is agent for Aiken Holdings LLC. (This property was adjacent to the original Project Pascalis footprint, but is now within it). 

March 18, 2021: AMDC first announces the existence of Project Pascalis. City of Aiken Development Director Tim O’Briant tells the Aiken Standard “Transparency is key” and promises more pubic information within a few months. (Although details are not released, even the initial plan was to demolish Hotel Aiken and surrounding properties and construct a new hotel, apartments, parking garage, and conference center complex similar to that originally proposed at 828 Richland Ave. E, the old hospital). 

O’Briant and Chair Keith Wood authorized by the Commission to execute an agreement with an unnamed, “experienced and well-capitalized” private developer that was “recruited and identified” by the AMDC. (public learns in 2022 that developer was Weldon Wyatt’s GAC LLC; and only in the November 4,  2021 meeting minutes is it revealed that WTC, Investments, LLC was involved with property purchases). 

April 2021

April 13: Aiken Standard reports AMDC meeting behind closed doors to discuss Project Pascalis, indicating it involves downtown properties. 

April 15: WTC Investments, LLC signs purchase and sale agreement with Newberry Hall property owner Myrtle Anderson to buy the property for $2 million. Modified lease agreement provides Newberry Hall business operators options to negotiate repurchase the new building, operate the new conference center, and receive compensation for lost income during construction stages. 

Vampire Penguin opens for business at 106 Laurens Street, while planning to demolish the building proceeds in secrecy. 

May 2021:  

May 5: WTC Investments, LLC re-registered to do business in South Carolina. Agent: Attorney Ray Massey. 

May ?? 2021. WTC Investments, LLC withdraws from its contracts to purchase downtown properties. The Chamber of Commerce takes “assignment” of the property contracts while the AMDC seeks funding to purchase them on behalf of the city. This all occurs behind closed doors. 

May  19, 2021. The AMDC sends solicitations for Requests for Proposals to continue the new hotel/apartments/garage/conference center project to select developers. In the solicitation, the AMDC offers to privatize a part of Newberry Street. (The entire solicitation remains secret to this day, withheld under a FOIA exemption by the City of Aiken, despite fact that FOIA clearly states the city “may” release the documents. The AMDC does not deny the solicitation is only for demolition, not renovation of Hotel Aiken and surrounding properties.) 

June 2021 

June 8: Longtime State Farm agent Joseph Harrison sells his office property at 121 Newberry Street SW—adjacent to Newberry Hall—to Aiken Alley Holdings LLC (Ray Massey, agent) for $675,000. 

July 2021: 

July 12, 2021. AMDC Chair Keith Wood sends letter requesting $10 million in city funds from Aiken City Council to purchase “Parkway area properties” between Morgan and Williamsburg Street. 

August 2021

August 25: City of Aiken approves $10 million in funding for the AMDC to purchase properties in the “Parkway District” bounded by Morgan Street, Hampton Avenue, Park Avenue, and Beaufort Street. Exact properties remain unspecified. 

September 2021

September 20, 2021: AMDC announces it will conduct a fact finding trip to review the redevelopment of downtown Florence. 

September , 2021: AMDC and several officials, joined by Attorney Ray Massey and representatives of Rainesco hold a “public meeting “ at a Florence restaurant. Meeting minutes are noticeably short. 

October 2021 

October , 2021. RPM Development Partners, LLC registers with the SC Secretary of State. Agent: Ray Massey. Key Players: Rainesco and Lat Purser (RPM likely to represent Raines, Purser, and Massey).  Story not reported. 

October , 2021: City of Aiken signs contract with Attorney Gary Pope for assistance with legal counsel. (This agreement cited in May 2021 as evidence of City Attorney Gary Smith’s “recusal” from all things Pascalis, but no such recusal is in document). 

November 2021

November 5: In an Aiken Standard article, Development Director O’Briant again emphasized the need for transparency, and stated the AMDC would soon have a website to share information. 

November 6: Project Pascalis is discussed at a Design Review Board meeting. Responding to a question about the future of Hotel Aiken, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh states a decision is still pending. 

November 9: AMDC announces the purchase of several downtown properties for a total of $9.5 million, including Newberry Hall and Warneke Cleaners. The information is shared on the AMDC’s website, aikenmdc.org: 

Click to access Municipal-Development-Commission-Agenda-Packet-Updated.pdf

Aiken Standard fails to report involvement of the Chamber of Commerce. 

According to County Records and the AMDC report, the purchases were: 

106 Laurens St SW for $1 Million from Shah Enterprises. 

235 Richland Ave (Hotel Aiken) and 112 Bee Lane/219 Richland Ave (The motel portion of Hotel Aiken) for $4.25 million from Historic Hospitality LLC (which had “purchased” the hotel in 2017 from Shah Enterprises for $5). 

211 Richland Ave West, 203 Richland Ave West, and 113 Newberry Street (Warneke Cleaners) for $2.25 million from S & N Hospitality LLC (which had purchased the properties in 2018 for $ 1 million from Myrtle Anderson). 

111 Newberry Street (Newberry Hall) for $2 million from Myrtle Anderson. 

December 2021

December 3, 2021. RPM Development Partners announced as Project Pascalis developer. Purchase and Sale agreement made between RPM . Aiken Standard reports that AMDC owned properties scheduled to be “razed.” (Document released in April 2021 shows that one developer rejected in part for only offering $1 million for Hotel Aiken). 

December 13 and 20; 2021. AMDC advertises for Requests for Proposals for Project Pascalis, as required by community development law, but after choosing a developer. 

December 26-December 31: At the urging of the AMDC, Rainesco CEO Grey Raines hosts five private meetings organized by Aiken Chamber of Commerce President and AMDC Commissioner J. David Jameson. AMDC Director Tim O’Briant attends every meeting with Commissioner Jameston. (City of Aiken denies the meetings qualify under Open Meetings clause of FOIA). 

January 2022

January 4: : Rainesco engineers conduct structural assessment of Hotel Aiken, even though decision to demolish building was made behind closed doors in early 2021. 

January 22: Aiken Standard reports that “CTR, LLC, a group of local investors led by attorney Ray Massey, has offered $800,000” for two city-owned properties: the east half of the 214 Park Avenue municipal building and the parking lot across from the Hotel Aiken. Council meets in Executive Session to discuss the offer, no results are reported. Attorney Massey’s law partner, City Attorney Gary Smith, does not recuse himself from the proceedings. 

February 2022

Feburary 17: DRB tours Hotel Aiken during a “special work session.” 

March 2022

March 1: DRB approves demolition of Hotel Aiken and 106 Laurens Street by a vote of 6-1. Vice-Chair Lucy Knowles casts sole dissenting vote. (Councilperson Andrea Gregory withdraws support for Ms. Knowles within a month of the vote, and nominates non-resident Laura Blessing to the Board to replace Ms. Knowles at the end of her term). 

March 28: Ten months after AMDC offered part of Newberry Street to interested developers, Aiken City Council conducts first public hearing (reading) of ordinance to privatize  0.6 acres of Newberry Street, in exchange for 123 Newberry St. SW and parking area behind 210 The Alley. Council unanimously approves first reading of ordinance despite nearly 100 percent of comments being against the proposal.  City Attorney Gary Smith acts in usual parliamentarian role. 

April 2022

April 15: Aiken Standard reports unilateral AMDC decision to repurpose soon to be vacated 214 Park Avenue municipal building into the new conference center. Tim O’Briant credits DRB Chairman McDonald Law with the suggestion. (Mr. Law later denies this was an “ex-parte” communication that violates FOIA Open Meetings law). Aiken County Chair Gary Bunker expresses concern about stalled negotiations with city to utilize the building for office space for county judicial functions. 

April 20: AMDC holds first public meetings to discuss entirety of Project Pascalis. RPM Development Partners, LLC and City contractors devote 85% of the scheduled meeting time to presentations before accepting a single comment or question. Public comments at the first meeting is suspended after an hour due to “prior engagements” of Raines representatives. Two AMDC Commissioners, Keith Wood and Chris Verenes, speak in favor of the project without disclosing their affiliation. 

Attorney Gary Pope sits at a city meeting for the first time, in place of City Attorney Gary Smith. Mr. Pope offers the information that Mr. Smith called him at “an early point in the project” to recused himself; but provides no date. (No written recusal documentation is offered in response to subsequent FOIA requests). 

May 2022

May 9: Aiken City Council votes 6-1 on second reading 6-1 to approve Newberry StreetOrdinance, with councilperson Ed Woltz the lone dissenting vote. Among other falsehoods, Councilperson Kay Brohl supports her yes vote by describing The Alley as an unlively place prior to the city’s 2016 renovation. AMDC Commissioner Philip Merry speaks in favor of the proposal without revealing his affiliation. Attorney Gary Pope sits in place of City Attorney Gary Smith. 

May 10: Lawsuit filed by area resident and Aiken property owner Drew Johnson documenting conflict of interest violations by City Attorney Gary Smith due to the role of his law partner Ray Massey in Project Pascalis. (In subsequent response, defendants do not deny the allegations but call for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds). 

May 11, 2022: Formation of the Do It Right! Alliance is announced, with the goal of preserving historic properties and holding city officials accountable to the law. 

May 15: AMDC releases “Just the Facts…,” revealing its intent to resell city properties to developers at a discounted price. 

June 2022

June 7, 2022: Aiken Downtown Development Association sponsors public “design workshop” to solicit comments on modified design of Hotel Aiken facade. AMDC Director Tim O’Briant tells WJBF News in Augusta that appraisals were unnecessary because the property is like gold. 

June 21, 2022. Design Review Board holds “design workshop.” Attendees not told until beginning of the meeting of a no public comment policy. City officials summon a police offer 

June 24, 2022: City of Aiken posts 45 notices announcing DRB public hearing on proposed demolition of Newberry Hall, Warneke Cleaners, Motel portion of Hotel Aiken, Johnson Drug Store, Taj Aiken Restaurant, and adjacent businesses. 

June 27: Historical Aiken Foundation, which is identified as a key city partner in its strategic development plan, releases fact sheet documenting concerns that support its opposition to Project Pascalis.

Next: August to September, 2022.

June 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

Letter from Don Moniak to the City of Aiken Design and Review Board, June 28, 2022

Leave a comment
AMDC is knowingly violating state law and official city planning process. Stop this Bait and Switch.
  • To: City of Aiken Design Review Board (rseymour@cityofaikensc.gov) 
  • Re: Known violations of SC Community Development Law 

As described previously, the City of Aiken’s Municipal Development Commission is proceeding with Project Pascalis in violation of SC Community Development Law. The AMDC and City officials are quite aware of the law governing their very existence and limitations on their powers. 

Here are two examples of this knowledge: 

In a June 12, 2019, City of Aiken memo from Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant  to  City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, regarding “questions posed during public comment”  regarding the ordinance proposed to form the AMDC: 

The first question he addressed was: 

“Will the Proposed commission reduce public participation and/or reduce approval to a single public hearing?” 

His answer was a clear no: 

“The commission would actually add additional opportunity for public review and input. Any plan to be considered for a recommendation to City Council by the Commission would require advertisement of a public hearing 15 days prior to consideration. Once such development ..plan recommendation is passed by Commission, the project itself would move through the planning commission to determine compliance with the comprehensive plan and all zoning requirements, and the Design Review Board as required. Then, and only then, would City Council consider the project recommendations through the regular two reading, public hearing and approval process. ..” 

Mr. O’Briant then cited City Ordinance 31-10-100 to support his position. 

This was the correct answer. 

A second example occurred at the first AMDC meeting in May 2020. According to the meeting minutes, Mr. O’Briant discussed a “very small redevelopment plan” prepared by Arnett Muldrow and Associates: 

“essentially surrounding the Regions Bank Building which is now being retrofitted as the new City Hall. It includes the corner of Richland and Laurens. If this group has any thoughts about Hotel Aiken it would be appropriate to have those discussions. Whether we come up with anything or not, we can’t really get into it if we don’t have a plan that encompasses the area” 

This too was the correct perspective. 

So here are two concrete examples of a city official displaying full awareness of the laws governing the AMDC and the municipal code governing the City of Aiken’s public process. 

Yet, here we are two years later and those laws and ordinances have knowingly not been followed: 

1.  There was no public hearing proceeding the two readings of the Redevelopment plan; and 

2. The approved redevelopment plan has not been amended to allow for demolition, to account for business relocations, to address the partial privatization of Newberry Street, and to include the properties housing Newberry Hall and Warneke Cleaners; and 

3. The planning commission step was skipped despite the fact this project has nearly doubled in size since March 2022. 

These violations in the law constitute a genuine, illegal bait and switch. If the DRB acts on this demolition request, it is complicit in this illegal bait and switch. 

Thank You,

Donald Moniak

Aiken County, SC 

June 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

Correspondence To/From the City of Aiken Design and Review Board (DRB)

1 Comment
Letter from Don Moniak After the June 21 DRB “Worksession” sent June 21, 2022/10:06 p.m.

Dear DRB Members, 

Most sources define “public meetings” as meetings involving public comments. For example, at lawinsider.com: 

‘Public meeting means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public gathering of people to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the local government’s decision.”

The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government does not mince words when it asks “is it a (public) meeting? 

” A rose by any other name smells as sweet, and a meeting by any other name still gets the job done. It doesn’t matter whether it’s called a work session, retreat, training seminar or phone tree — under the Open Meetings Act, a meeting occurs whenever a quorum of a public body:(a) formulates public policy,

(b) discusses public business, or

(c) takes action.”

The EPA, which has as miserable a record on real public meetings as Project Pascalis, does describe the intent of them in an eloquent fashion: 

“Public meetings bring diverse groups of stakeholders together for a specific purpose. Public meetings are held to engage a wide audience in information sharing and discussion. They can be used to increase awareness of an issue or proposal, and can be a starting point for, or an ongoing means of engaging, further public involvement. When done well, they help build a feeling of community.”

And under SC FOIA law, a “meeting” is simply defined as: “the convening of a quorum of the constituent membership of a public body…to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public body supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.”

Tonite the DRB claimed it held a public meeting, but it was not a public meeting by any acceptable definition of the term. 

Here is the link to the AMDC document I referred to after Mr. O’Briant decided to go all North Augustan and summoned an armed, uniformed policeman, lostensibly to haul out by force some recalcitrant senior citizens. 

25 public meetings and hearings held on Project Pascalis over the last 24 months

In it, three DRB “special work sessions” are on the list, as are four regularly scheduled City  Council workshops. That is seven of the twenty-five. And before you think the rest of the “meetings” cited by the AMDC pertained to Project Pascalis, seven of those occurred before the project was even a notion. 

So obviously people are going to be upset when meetings that are described as public turn out to be closed to public comments, and without advance notice. The fact these commentary free sessions are allowed in some legal loophole does not excuse the fact that the law does not require them to be comment free. 

Mr. Holley is well aware of the difference between may, must, shall, and should and provided advice that was contrary to the common good tonite. You all had a chance to “build community” and instead treated the long table in a crowded room as a fortress. 

If one City of Aiken public body is going to cite these as public meetings, with all the implications of public input and involvement, then as a city public body you have an obligation to do one of two things: 

1. Ask the AMDC to not count work sessions in which public comment is prohibited as “public meetings.” 

Or 

2. Open work sessions to public comments. 

In either case, every DRB meeting involving this contentious proposal known as “Project Pascalis,”–a moniker that alone offends the sensibilities of many Aikenites–should identify these rules ahead of time, and DRB members and counsel should keep up with the politics of this situation instead of feigning that your operate in a vacuum. 

A few secondary issues from this latest meeting: 

a. Tonite, the DRB chair and counsel should have acknowledged the reason for these changes and address the basic qualifications of Board members. If members who recently resigned did so because they were never qualified by virtue of their residency status to begin with, how legitimate were past meetings where unqualified  members cast votes? 

b. As counsel, Mr. Holley should advise every Board member request a City email address or a separate email server like the AMDC has done with its members. In either case, all new and existing Board members should be made well aware that official email correspondence from a private account is still subject to SC FOIA requests and it is best to separate public from private. Didn’t Hillary teach us that without even trying? 

c. Tonite’s workshop failed at a basic level. At least from 530 pm to 7 pm there was no discussion of the suitability of the Apartments/Garage on Richland/Newberry on the site of the historic Johnson Drug Store, Newberry Hall, and Warneke Cleaners. There was only discussion of the suitability of select design elements. This gives a clear impression that the decision is already made, that the DRB, even with three new members with minimal exposure to the project, already accepts the parameters of this part of the project with no reservations other than colors and materials. 

While no vote was taken, it sure looked like a decision was already in place. 

d. This meeting confirmed that the Newberry Street “encroachment,” a.k.a a “conveyance” in the Newberry St privatization ordinance, was not the developer’s idea, but one first secretly proposed by the AMDC in May 2021 and not brought before public scrutiny until a year later. 

This is the politics of the situation to which I refer and Board members should be cognizant of. This entire process was shrouded in secrecy for most of 2021, and to this day transparency is a moving target. If you choose to take part in a charade, then you are complicit in the crimes of Project Pascalis. 

Thank You 

Don Moniak

Please forward to Ben Lott)

Anonymous Response from DRB Member (rivulet00_swathe@icloud.com). Tue, Jun 21, 2022, 11:06 PM

You are dead wrong … and probably know it!

A public meeting is any meeting open to the public and where the public is notified of its time, place and topic as required by law. A public hearing allows for comment by the public, but not all meetings are public hearings. The public is allowed to be in the room and observe at a work session or any public meeting, but not to participate unless invited to.  

As DRB members, we have every right to hear from applicants and do our work without the interruption and disruption of  “Recalcitrant senior citizens” as you describe yourself. Trust that we will hold public hearings when a vote is scheduled and hear all of your half-truths and twisted conspiracies then. We have to suffer through it by law. I can’t wait.

General assembly and congress meetings are public too, but I dare you to speak up in one of those and see what happens. You’ll be dragged out by your wrinkled, hairy old ears.

Response from Don Moniak to Anonymous DRB member, sent June 22, 10:10 a.m.

Btw meetings of Congress etc are public proceedings. 

Have you finished your resignation letter yet? I would like to be the first to make it public. 

June 2022, Money Trails, Project Pascalis 2022

Reminder of the Day: Project Pascalis and the Wyatt Factor

2 Comments

by Don Moniak
June 21, 2022

While the exact origins of Project Pascalis are unknown, the first prominent actor was local developer Weldon Wyatt.  Here is a brief update, with new information provided by Aiken County via a FOIA request, on how Wyatt burned the City of Aiken not once, but twice, which raises serious questions about the judgment behind Project Pascalis decision making. 

The “First Home Run for the Community” Lands in Foul Territory

On February 5, 2019, Mayor Rick Osbon wrote to Aiken County Council Chair Gary Bunker to endorse the sale and development of the county’s old hospital and administrative building to Wyatt Development Company (which had actually dissolved in 2013). Osbon, who had met with Weldon Wyatt and his son, Tom, four days earlier described their vision as “compelling” and urged a collaboration between county and city: 

I hope the City of Aiken and Aiken County can collaborate on this project; one that promises to create an exciting and engaging property at a critical gateway to Our Downtown.

Two months later the County and the latest Wyatt firm, WTC Investments, LLC, reached a purchase and sale agreement for $1.1 million with Aiken County. WTC then pursued a plan for the old hospital that included a 100 room hotel, conference center, 400 space parking deck/garage, and a 150-unit apartment building. 

After the City of Aiken Planning Commission approved the concept in May, 2019, WTC Manager Tom Wyatt told the Aiken Standard: “We think this is a home run for the community, for the city.”

In November, 2019, Aiken City Council approved the concept and rezoned the property. Two months later the deal was all but dead, when WTC attorney Ray Massey wrote to county attorney Jim Holley: 

After much discussion, we will not be moving forward with contract on the old hospital. We still want to move forward on old county office building with no conditions as we discussed.

The decision took county officials, who were still negotiating in good faith with WTC, off-guard. As County Attorney Holley wrote to Aiken County Council:  

We were surprised to learn late Sunday through a very brief email to me from WTC’s attorney that WTC had decided to end the Agreement.

While Massey did not divulge any rationale for the withdrawal, Holley speculated to Council that: 

We believe the factors that contributed to WTC’s decision were its failure to obtain economic incentives from the City of Aiken for its original hotel/apartments project; how the revised plan to build apartments only impacted the project; the length of time needed to remove the SCETV tower; the possibility other competing apartment projects could surface in the meantime; its desire to engage in demolition of the Hospital Building and other site improvements before the SCETV tower is removed; and the likely poor reception of Council to its proposal for the County to repurchase the Hospital Parcel, purchase the Council of Aging site, and pay most of  WTC’s costs if the SCETV Tower was not removed in the time frame of November 2020 to January 2021.

Fool Me Twice….

One year later Weldon Wyatt and Attorney/Investor Ray Massey were back in the hotel/conference center/apartments/garage business, this time in downtown Aiken.

Their second foray came just four to five months after the announcement of a $600 million Plutonium Settlement between the State of South Carolina and the U.S. Department of Energy, of which Aiken officials soon sought $30 million for Downtown and Northside redevelopment. For a man who had reportedly chased $12.5 of city funds for his old hospital misadventure, this must have been an alluring prospect. 

On March 18, 2021, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission announced Project Pascalis, describing how its chair Keith Wood and Aiken Economic Executive Director Tim O’Briant were authorized by to execute an agreement with an unnamed, “experienced and well-capitalized” private developer that had been “identified and recruited” by the AMDC. We now know that developer was a combination of Wyatt firms, GAC, LLC and WTC Investments, LLC (although the first WTC dissolved in January 2021, a second one was registered in May 2021). 

Not coincidentally, Attorney Ray Massey’s Aiken Alley Holdings also closed on a deal to purchase 200 and 210 The Alley for $2 million just three days before the Project Pascalis announcement. 

Once again, two months after a grandiose Wyatt plan to change Aiken for the better was announced or approved, Wyatt withdrew without providing a motive.  Unlike his exit during the old hospital fiasco, this departure was never announced or reported by the AMDC. 

Why did the City of Aiken pursue a major redevelopment project with Weldon Wyatt just one year after he and his associates abruptly withdrew from another major project and left Aiken County high and dry? And why did the City of Aiken and the AMDC choose to keep secret the details of his latest plan? 

Why did the Aiken Chamber of Commerce and the AMDC choose to bail out WTC Investments, which stood to lose $135,000 in nonrefundable earnest money, instead of pursuing public input while renegotiating with the Hotel Aiken and other property owners? 

Aiken officials can answer these questions, but have chosen not to, even as the decision to continue to do business with Wyatt, and now Ray Massey,has already left Aiken taxpayers indebted to the tune of $10 million plus. 

June 2022, Laws & Bylaws, Project Pascalis 2022

Reminder of the Day: Project Pascals is arguably proceeding in violation of South Carolina municipal redevelopment laws. 

1 Comment

Specifically, the AMDC: 

  1. Is basing the project on a redevelopment plan approved the year before the first project proposal, and does not include most of the project’s footprint; 
  2. Failed to hold a public hearing for that first and only redevelopment plan;
  3. Failed to issue a public advertisement for a Request for Proposals (RFP)
Background on Municipal Commissions and Redevelopment

By law, publicly financed economic redevelopment must adhere to Title 31 of the SC Code of Laws.  In regard to Project Pascalis, the most pertinent of these statutes are within Chapter 10, which define the criteria for creating municipal commissions like the AMDC and the rules they must follow. 

Under part 30 of this chapter, municipal commissions like the AMDC can be created by the governing body (City Council) if it finds:

(1) that a blighted area or conservation area exists in whole or in part in such municipality,

(2) that the redevelopment of such areas is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the residents of such municipality.

While the AMDC has broad powers to enact its charge, its “specific” powers defined in Part 90 are to:

 “make (i) plans for carrying out a program of voluntary repair and rehabilitation of buildings and improvements and (ii) plans for the enforcement of laws, codes, and regulations relating to the use of land and the use and occupancy of buildings and improvements, and to the compulsory repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal of buildings and improvements. The commission is further authorized to develop, test, and report methods and techniques, and carry out demonstrations and other activities, for the prevention and elimination of slums and urban blight.”

The One and Only Redevelopment Plan One for Downtown Aiken

The AMDC was created by ordinance in August 2019 by Aiken City Council, but did not meet until May 2020. One of its first orders of business was to review and adopt a Redevelopment Plan already in progress for downtown Aiken, one compliant with Part 100 that defined nine requirements (1) for a finished plan. This plan was described at the first meeting by Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant: 

We have engaged a firm out of Greenville, SC called Muldrow & Associates to do a very small redevelopment plan, essentially surrounding the Regions Bank Building which is now being retrofitted as the new City Hall. It includes the corner of Laurens and Richland. If this group has any thoughts about Hotel Aiken, it would be appropriate to have those discussions. Whether we come up with anything or not, we can’t really get into it if we don’t have a plan that encompasses that area. He noted that the former Regions Bank building is currently being redeveloped as the new City Hall. He said we would like to get input from the Commission on this as well.

From the very beginning, the AMDC was informed that any redevelopment plan must be specific; a plan must “encompass” the area proposed for redevelopment. The Muldrow plan does not address any redevelopment on Newberry Street (which is not a “blighted” area in any sense of the word) nor Park Avenue (also lacking any blight issues); it proposed no changes in street layouts, and it did not propose to relocate a single business. 

In reference to properties east of the Hotel, such as the historic former Johnson Drug Store building, the Muldrow plan specifically states “existing buildings to remain.” All other “redevelopment” is merely streetscape improvements. 

The AMDC adopted the Muldrow plan by a resolution a few months later, but never held its own public hearing as required by Part 100: 

d) The commission shall hold a public hearing prior to its final adoption of a redevelopment plan. Notice of such hearing shall be given fifteen days prior thereto in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality.

This clause functions to avoid burying major projects within larger city business proceedings. But the AMDC took the latter approach by forwarding the plan to Aiken City Council, which shortly thereafter approved it following two “public hearings” held during normal City Council business.

There has been no update or amendments to the plan as required by law, and when asked for the Project Pascalis Redevelopment Plan required by SC 31-10-100, the AMDC provides only a link to the Muldrow prepared plan, titled “Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Aiken,” or “Redevelopment Plan One.”

View the approved plan
The Wyatt Scheme Goes Awry

Even without any Plan Two, the AMDC proceeded to announce the existence of Project Pascalis less than eight months later. Although the AMDC kept the details secret, we now know the initial plan pursued by Weldon Wyatt’s GAC, LLC and facilitated by Wyatt and Attorney Ray Massey’s WTC Investments, LLC was to: 

  1. demolish everything on the south side of Richland Avenue between Laurens and  Newberry Streets
  2. demolish half of the west side of Newberry Street; 
  3. force eight businesses to relocate; and negotiate a deal with Newberry Hall to compensate the owners for lost business during construction and options to operate and purchase the new conference center building; 
  4. privatize part of Newberry St. 

The WTC plan involved purchasing the seven properties from two owners, with $7.5 million going to Neel Shah’s various LLCs holding six of the properties; and $2.0 million going to Myrtle Anderson for Newberry Hall. Wyatt pursued a private-public partnership with the AMDC and City of Aiken, then abruptly withdrew from the negotiations and the purchase and sale agreements in May 2021 just two months after the first announcement of Project Pascalis. The AMDC chose to not disclose this change in plans. 

The AMDC Secretly Pursues a New Developer

After Weldon Wyatt’s GAC, LLC withdrew from negotiations for a master agreement with the AMDC, the Chamber of Commerce stepped in and took “assignment” of the properties while the AMDC sought to procure funding to buy them outright. This process was kept secret until November 2021, and was never openly discussed or announced even then. 

Instead of formulating a new redevelopment plan, the AMDC instead sent out solicitations for Request for Proposals to select developers. The entire solicitation remains classified as “confidential” and exempt from FOIA by the City of Aiken, although the AMDC has released a summary document. 

Click to access Pascalis-summary.pdf

However, under Part 110(c) of Title 31, the AMDC was obligated to advertise for bids: 

c) The commission shall, by public notice, published once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality, invite proposals and shall make available all pertinent information to any persons interested in undertaking a purchase of property or the redevelopment of an area or any part thereof.

As reported previously, the AMDC did not advertise for bids until two weeks after announcing the selection of RPM Development Partners, LLC as the Project Pascalis developer, pending the successful negotiation of a master agreement. 

Click to access Pascalis-RFP-Affidavit-of-Publication-of-public-notice-in-Aiken-Standard-12.1320-4872-4968-1416-v.1-002.pdf

This was all kept secret through most of 2021, and the AMDC never sought to update its redevelopment plan as required by law. Even as late as November 4, 2021, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh denied there was any final plan to demolish the Hotel Aiken and chose not to divulge the original demolition plans, or the fact that the AMDC’s purchase and sale agreements only required inspection of two properties — Warneke Cleaners and Taj Aiken Restaurant. 

Board Member Knowles expressed appreciation for the update and inquired as to whether the plans intended to keep Hotel Aiken intact. Mr. Bedenbaugh stated it was too early in the process to know what potential developers may intend for the Hotel Aiken property. — Design Review Board Special Workshop Meeting Minutes, November 4, 2021

To this day, Bedenbaugh refuses to release the full May 2021 solicitation letters and the body of the RFQ that would indicate the original intent of the AMDC. 

The Design Review Board meets in another special workshop tomorrow. The Board should be reminded they have no obligation to act on a proposal that is in clear violation of SC redevelopment law, and every right to demand full transparency from City officials. 

_______________

References

(1) The nine requirements for a finished redevelopment plan are defined in SC31-10-100(c):

c) The commission’s redevelopment plan shall include, without being limited to, the following:
(1) the boundaries of the redevelopment area, with a map showing the existing uses of the real property therein;
(2) a land use plan of the redevelopment area showing proposed uses following redevelopment;
(3) standards of population densities, land coverage, and building intensities in the proposed redevelopment;
(4) a preliminary site plan of the redevelopment area;
(5) a statement of the proposed changes, if any, in zoning ordinances or maps;
(6) a statement of any proposed changes in street layouts or street levels;
(7) a statement of the estimated cost and method of financing redevelopment under the redevelopment plan;
(8) a statement of such continuing controls as may be deemed necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter;
(9) a statement of a feasible method proposed for the relocation of the families displaced.