Tag Archives: AMDC

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.

Laws & Bylaws, Meeting Law Violations, November 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

State Ethics Law Makes Three Appearances

Leave a comment

November 14, 2022 Aiken City Council Meeting 

by Don Moniak

November 15, 2022

South Carolina’s ethics law states: 

“No public official, public member, or public employee may make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his office, membership, or employment to influence a governmental decision in which he, a family member, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated has an economic interest.”
(SC 8-13-700(B))

Towards the end of their half hour meeting on October 11, 2021,  Aiken City Council members enjoyed a lighthearted moment at the expense of this fundamental anti-corruption statute. 

Mayor Osbon: Item number one is a request from the Kiwanis Club  to hang banners in the downtown to  promote Aiken’s Bacon and Brews event. I don’t know that we need any comment from staff…so at this time I would entertain a motion.” 

Councilman Ed Girardeau: Question, I’m a member of Kiwanis, and should I recuse myself?

City Attorney Gary Smith: Are you gonna profit from the banners being raised up? I guess it wouldn’t hurt to recuse just to make sure you’re not having any impropriety.” 

“Ed Girardeau: “Ok, yeah, recuse me.” 

The exchange was followed by a round of laughter from Council members, as seen in this video. 

Any casual observer was unaware this was an inside joke. Earlier in the meeting, City Attorney Gary Smith had recused himself, in writing, from an Executive Session legal discussion regarding property whose owners had employed a partner in his law firm. The recusal was not noted in the meeting minutes (1), and it is unknown who provided the legal advice in Smith’s absence. It is the only known written recusal by Smith in 2021 or 2022.

This recusal was obtained by Aiken resident Kelly Cornelius via a Freedom of Information Act Request.

There were no such insider jokes or chuckling during Council’s recent two-hour plus meeting on November 14, 2022. The meeting featured a serious discussion about conflicts of interest rules in the Equine Committee’s bylaws, and City Attorney Gary Smith formally recusing himself twice as many times as he had between January 1, 2021 and October 1, 2022.

Smith recused himself for the second reading of the repeal of the Newberry Street privatization ordinance, and again during discussion and voting on a resolution regarding a property negotiation involving his business partner Mary Guynn. As reported in The Pascalis Attorneys, Smith has been more notable for a lack of recusals in the past two years, which have been cited in three lawsuits alleging violations of South Carolina ethics laws. 

The absence of recusals by the City Attorney also reflected poorly on City Council. No members recognized a conflict of interest during multiple potential and probable conflict of interest circumstances; such as when Smith was present and acting in his official capacity during discussions and/or votes to: 

  • Pass a $10 million municipal bond for the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) to purchase properties associated with the secretive Project Pascalis demolition and redevelopment effort. Smith’s law partner Ray Massey was deeply involved in the project as an investor, and signed a contract to purchase the properties at half the price paid for by the AMDC a month prior. The contract was eventually terminated two months after a major lawsuit was filed seeking an injunction against the project. 
  • Sell city-owned property bequested by the estate of Mattie C. Hall in the early 1970’s to his law firm associate Scott Patterson for the deeply discounted price of $150,000, as reported in The City of Aiken’s Mattie C. Hall Property.
  • Propose the sale of city-owned downtown property to another Ray Massey firm at a deeply discounted price. 

The more direct discussion on ethics occurred shortly after Smith’s second recusal, during approval of the Equine Committee’s bylaws. Councilwoman Kay Brohl raised a question regarding the following clause: 

“To avoid a conflict of interest, which occurs when an individual uses his or her committee position for personal economic benefit, a member may recuse themselves from the topic discussion and vote. In the case of recusal, the member does not count for establishing a quorum. All members of the Committee are considered to be ‘public members’ under state law, and therefore subject to the Ethics Act and other applicable conduct requirements established in the Code of Laws of South Carolina.”

At issue was whether the word “subsequent” should be inserted before the word “vote,” but the larger issue was addressed by Aiken resident and attorney Lucy Knowles, who stated: 

“My suggestion is while you’re changing it you should change ‘may” to ‘must’. That is because that’s a requirement of state law that they have to recuse.” 

The Equine Committee may not seem like a potential hotbed for conflict of interests, but local equestrian non-profits routinely receive funding from city accomodations tax revenues to help market their events. The city also contributed a million dollars in 2020 from hospitality and capital projects sales tax revenues to the Aiken Steeplechase Foundation for the purchase of its new venue. 

The entire exchange solidified a subsequent contention, made by Aiken resident Luis Rinaldini, that the city needs to change the current relationship with its attorneys.  Rinaldini, who helped found the Do It Right! Alliance and is a plaintiff in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, made the case against “continuing with the same cast of characters” in the wake of the failure of Project Pascalis: 

“The City of Aiken has just witnessed the cancellation of the 100 million dollar Pascalis project.  It’s undoubtedly maybe the largest in its history….yet here were are two months after cancellation and Council hasn’t said anything. I just don’t think that’s smart or a good idea. I think the public wants to know what council feels about this process, and unfortunately your silence isn’t helpful.

”You must  see that saying nothing and pursuing business as usual isn’t going to work and it’s just going to make you look arrogant and tone deaf. Citizens want to reasonable change from Council. They want transparency, good governance and fiscal responsibility. 

“And there are three other things citizens are looking for. They want a change in the composition and functioning of the Design Review Board, a change in the composition and functioning of the AMDC if it is not going to be abolished, and a change in the city’s relationship with its attorneys.” 

________________

FOOTNOTES:

(1) Reference to the October 11, 2021, closed-door Executive Session are on Page 5 of the Workshop minutes at https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1824708&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF . 

Further reference to municipal ethics rules can be found on pages 18-20 of the City of Aiken Handbook For Boards and Committees.

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.”

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

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

5 Comments

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.”