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.
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 Location
Atttorney
Clients
Nance and McCants; Aiken
Clark McCants III, Clark McCants IV
Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith
Smith-Robinson, Columbia
Daniel Plyler, Rachel Lee
City of Aiken, Mayor Rick Osbon, and City Council members
Lindemann and Davis; Columbia
Andrew Lindemann
Design Review Board (DRB) and seven DRB members
James Holley; Landrum
James Holly
DRB and members
David Morrison
David Morrison
AMDC and commissioners
Davidson, Wren, and Demasters; Columbia.
Michael Wren
Tim O’Briant
Womble Bond and Dickinson; Charleston
Charles J. Baker, Molly McDermid, James Myrick
RPM Development Partners, LLC; and Raines Company
Nelson Mullins of Columbia
Dwight 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:
(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:
The $100 million plus downtown Aiken demolition and revelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis was officially terminated by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) on September 29, 2022. Unofficially, the project ended on September 14, 2022, when project developer RPM Development Partners, LLC (RPM) wrote a contract termination letter to AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant. By all indications, project work ceased around June 29, 2022, the day a demolition application for six properties was withdrawn by RPM.
The AMDC and City of Aiken have yet to provide an official report for its justifications for voting to end the project— after it was actually terminated by the developer. However, two AMDC members, Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chairman Chris Verenes, did provide individual accounts of what they perceived as the key issue: the delay of the publication of a legal public notice for a Request for Proposals (RFP) in December 2021 until after RPM had been chosen as the developer.
While blame for the illegality of this RFP has been directed at unnamed city employees, the AMDC has failed to account for the role of its contract attorney, Gary Pope, Jr of the Pope-Flynn law firm; nor does it provide any clarity and context in support of the protests of the two commissioners. The statements made by Chairman Wood and Vice-Chairman Verenes failed to answer the questions:
Why is the role of the AMDC’s legal counsel in preparing and publishing the RFP notice unaddressed?
When should have a legal notice for an RFP been published?
Why was no legal notice for the RFP published in May, 2021; when the AMDC began seeking a new developer after its first choice, Weldon Wyatt’s GAC, LLC, exited the project?
In his September 29, 2022, statement, AMDC Chairman Keith Wood wrote:
“AMDC was also informed on June 23, 2022, that staff delayed the publication of a Request for Proposal (RFP) without disclosing the action to the Commission. Subsequent to that decision, the AMDC was advised by staff to sign a Purchase & Sale Agreement (signed on December 3, 2021) without being told the RFP publication was delayed to a future date (December 13, 2021). This resulted in a signed agreement with the developer prior to the issuance of an RFP. Let me be clear, if I had known this…I would never have signed the purchase sale agreement.”
Mr. Wood then cited “staff’s failure” two more times in his statement for the reason the RFP was not legally valid.
In his September 29th statement, AMDC Vice-Chair Chris Verenes also chose to deflect blame; but was even less specific than Mr. Wood:
“A deliberate decision was made——WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL…to delay running an ad for proposals until after we signed an agreement with a developer.
Why weren’t we told that a unilateral decision was made to delay the RFP? Delayed for reasons that I believe are indefensible.”
Mr. Verenes provided no details for the reasons for the delay, and since proclaiming “the public deserves no less than the truth,” has not, along with Mr. Wood, released any additional information since September 29th.
The Public Notice for the RFP was first published in the Aiken Standard on December 13, 2021, ten days after the AMDC had announced the selection of RPM as its “preferred developer,” and republished a second time on December 20, 2021. Publication of a public notice for an RFP involving redevelopment and/or sale of property controlled by a development commission is mandated by South Carolina Community Development Law:
“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 person interested in undertaking a purchase of property or the redevelopment of an area or any part thereof. “ (SC 31-10-110(c))
Laws such as this exist to prevent corruption in the procurement process. They serve to prevent corrupt actions such as bid-rigging or the awarding of contracts to cronies. The law is fundamental to a process that protects taxpayer money and a fair, competitive market for services.
The Affadvit of Publication for the December 13 and 20, 2021 legal Public Notice for the “Request for Proposals”
The Role of Pope-Flynn
The publication was handled by the law firm of Pope-Flynn, which was officially contracted by the AMDC as Project Pascalis legal counsel in October, 2021. On November 12, 2021, Pope-Flynn attorney Gary Pope, Jr billed the city for time spent on preparing the notice for the Aiken Standard and correspondence with the paper; all part of a November invoice detailing 62.80 hours of work at a total cost to the AMDC of $19,586.48.
From November 2021 Pope-Flynn Billing Invoice to AMDC
Pope-Flynn’s next billable action on the RFP notice was on December 9, 2021, when the notice was reviewed by a Pope-Flynn paralegal, and Gary Pope Jr. sent a “revised notice of RFP to Aiken Standard.” This was six days after the AMDC announcement it had chosen RPM.
From December 2021 Pope-Flynn Billing Invoice to AMDC
Between November 12th and December 9th, 2021, Gary Pope, Jr. billed the AMDC for 13.3 hours of meeting related business, including a 1.5 hour “meeting with developers” and a “recap” of an AMDC meeting. The AMDC’s $350 per hour legal counsel met twice with commissioners in the two weeks following “correspondence with the Aiken Standard for publication of the public notice;”:
November 16, 2021, a meeting of the AMDC “Executive Committee,” composed of Keith Wood, Chris Verenes, and David Jameson.
November 23, 2021, a meeting of the full AMDC lasting 1.75 hours and conducted in closed-door executive session for all but ten minutes.
Was the subject of this public notice for RFPs discussed during more than three hours of meetings with AMDC members?
From November 2021, Pope-Flynn Billing Invoice
According to this timeline, an public notice of an RFP notice was not prepared until after the AMDC had purchased seven properties in downtown Aiken for a total cost of $9.6 million. While commissioners Wood and Verenes directed blame at city employees, they have yet to address the role played by their hired, contract legal counsel from the Pope-Flynn law firm, who was responsible for publishing the RFP after the developer was announced. They have also not identified when the notice of an RFP should have been published.
The May 2021 Solicitation for Proposals
Even if the RFP had been issued between November 12th and December 3rd, the fact remains that the AMDC began soliciting for proposals six months earlier; in May of 2021 following the withdrawal of Weldon Wyatt’s GAC, LLC from the first Project Pascalis endeavor. This was a period in which Gary Pope, Jr. was performing work for the AMDC under a separate contract with the City, but City Attorney Gary Smith remained the official legal counsel for the commission and the City.
On May 17th, 2021, in an email to David Jameson, Keith Wood, and Chris Verenes titled “Project backgrounder we discussed,” Tim O’Briant wrote:
“Gents, ‘
Please review this information that would be provided to potential developers we select.”
Attached to the email were three project documents.
On May 19, 2021, Tim O’Briant sent out the first solicitation to an unidentified developer in an email titled “deal points memo,” in which he provided the three project documents and wrote:
“I got the greenlight to send this out earlier than expected so you’ll be the first to receive it formally.”
Email from Tim O’Briant to unknown developer, possibly Andy Cajka of Southern Hospitality Group.
On June 8, 2021, the AMDC met to discuss developers in a closed-door executive session. In a June 10, 2021, email, Tim O’Briant cautioned everyone attending that meeting to avoid discussions with any developers:
“While I am pursuing discussions with the single selected developer, I will not be informing the other firms of that and until late next week at the earliest. “
No public notice of a Request for Proposals was conducted before any developers were contacted, interviewed, or chosen. Seven full months passed between the beginning of a search for a new developer and an actual notice for an RFP was issued.
Commissioners Keith Wood and Chris Verenes are willing to admit the December 13, 2021 public notice was not issued in a legal fashion. But they have yet to address the issue of the AMDC’s involvement in a redevelopment procurement process that began in secrecy in May 2021, when a legal Public Notice for a Request for Proposals was mandated.
As asserted in the Blake et al vs. City of Aiken et al lawsuit filed on July 5, 2022, it is the totality of violations related to the absence of an RFP prior to the AMDC selecting RPM as the Project Pascalis developer that is the enveloping issue:
“From the inception of Project Pascalis in March, 2021, until December 3, 2021, AMDC never voted to approve or to issue or to publicize an RFP and never issued or publicized an RFP as required by S.C. Code Section 31-10-110(c) to select a developer for Project Pascalis. AMDC has never had a valid redevelopment plan pursuant to S.C. Code Section 31-10-10, et seq., let alone one that describes or includes Project Pascalis. For this reason and because AMDC never conducted a valid RFP, RPM was improperly and unlawfully selected as the developer for Project Pascalis by AMDC on December 3, 2021, and RPM has never been properly and lawfully selected as a developer for Project Pascalis.”
Instead of addressing the entirety of the contention regarding the illegal selection of a developer by the AMDC, commissioners Wood and Verenes chose to address only a narrow portion of the issue. Both commissioners refused to answer any questions after reading their statements on September 29th, and have acquiesced in the City of Aiken’s decision to keep key Project Pascalis documents sealed.
Mr. Verenes stated “the public deserves no less than the truth.” Instead of keeping vital documents sealed under the ruse of Freedom of Information Act exemptions. The AMDC can provide the truth by publishing all records related to the now cancelled Project Pascalis; and address the issue of why city employees are bearing the brunt of the blame for the project’s failure while the City’s high paid legal counsel, AMDC members, the City Manager, and City Council escape scrutiny.
The Savannah River Site (SRS) Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) is an official federal advisory committee formed in the 1990s during a short-lived period of government “openness.” According to its mission statement, the SRS CAB “will provide” the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) office with “information, advice, and recommendations concerning issues affecting the EM program at SRS.” The Board also functions to provide offsite communities and its citizens one of the sole information and communications path to a mammoth government and corporate bureaucracy.
For the past two decades, when choosing bi-monthly meeting venues, the Citizens Advisory Board has snubbed poorer, rural communities that are closest downriver and downwind to SRS. These include Allendale and Barnwell Counties on the South Carolina side of the river; and Burke and Screven counties on the Georgia side of the river. The last Citizens Advisory Board meeting held in Barnwell County was in 2000; and no meeting has ever been held in Allendale, Burke, or Screven Counties.
The snubbing of Barnwell and Allendale counties is particularly relevant today in light of the plutonium settlement of 2020. The situation could change in 2023.
Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell Counties and The Plutonium Settlement
On August 31, 2020, the State of South Carolina and the Department of Energy (DOE) signed a $600 million settlement agreement (1) related to the decades long mismanagement of DOE’s plutonium storage and surplus disposition program. Central to the settlement is the presence of, and fate after the year 2037, of 9.5 out of the more than 11.0 tons of plutonium in long-term (up to fifty years) storage at the Savannah River Site’s (SRS) converted K-Reactor building.
During the years of litigation and negotiation, South Carolina politicians normally enamored with all nuclear developments and national defense missions began to describe plutonium storage as a nuclear dumping scheme. For example, Governor Nicki Haley told the Post and Courier newspaper in 2016:
“We will not back down: South Carolina will not be a permanent dumping ground for nuclear waste.”
This was in spite of the fact that all plutonium storage is above-ground; and the materials are closely monitored and retrievable.
(Plutonium storage at K-Area, Savannah River Site. DOE Photo)
According to the settlement agreement, the primary intent was to resolve economic impact and assistance payments related to the plutonium presence, the lack of progress in the disposition program, and the demand for a timeline to remove surplus plutonium. There is no intent in the agreement to end the storage and processing of plutonium at SRS—which is presently preparing for decades of producing nuclear weapon components called “plutonium pits.”
“The parties intend that this agreement will resolve all claims relating to economic and assistance payments or removal of plutonium, or will arise, between 2016 and the date on which the Department of Energy completes removal of the subject 9.5 metric tons of defense plutonium or defense plutonium materials.” (Settlement Agreement, Paragraph 13)
Local officials and media immediately angled for the prime cut of funding, citing Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell Counties as most impacted and most worthy. Congressman Joe Wilson, whose district encompasses SRS, stated the day of the settlement that:
“These funds should go directly to the counties of Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell were most impacted by the 1,700 jobs lost due to the DOE’s abandonment of MOX.” (WXLT-News)
On September 5th, the Aiken Standard’s editorial board wrote
“It’s time to financially assist those of us who have been most impacted by the economic ebb and flow surrounding the Savannah River Site, the shuttered MOX facility and its workforce.”
The Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) made a splash a few weeks later when it sent letters to various local and state elected officials that advocated for the entire settlement, after legal fees, go to the three South Carolina counties surrounding SRS: Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell. The AMDC wrote:
The risk of SRS operations and shipping/storing plutonium rests squarely within these three counties.
The letter’s author was AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, whose day job is Vice-President of Marketing and Communications for the National Security Group of Savannah River Site contractor Amentum Corporation. Other commissioner signatories included:
Stuart McVean, the Chief Executive Officer of Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, the primary SRS operating contractor; and
J. David Jameson, President of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce.
The letter may have marked the first time in SRS history that top SRS contract officials and the Aiken Chamber of Commerce collectively presented threats from past and present site operations in such a public light.
From: September 17, 2020 AMDC Letter to State Senator Tom Young and sixteen other elected officials.
Governor Henry McMaster concurred, and by the end of the 2020 issued a proposal advocating for all of the remaining $525 milllion to be allocated to the three counties, writing:
It is my belief that the communities surrounding SRS should be the prime beneficiaries of these settlement funds.
SRS CAB Meetings: Everywhere but Barnwell and Allendale
On September 26th, two years after the plutonium settlement was announced, the Savannah River Site (SRS) Citizen’s Advisory Board (SRS CAB) will meet at the Embassy Suites by Hilton in the historic district of Savannah, GA. The meeting marks the seventh time in the past ten years of in-person meetings the Board has met in upscale hotels in Savannah.
(The Embassy Suites by Hilton, Savannah, GA).
During that time it has met twelve other times along the coast:
seven times at Hilton Head Island, whose water supply originates from the Savannah River;
four times in Charleston, where the Port of Charleston accepts shipments of foreign nuclear waste and materials of U.S. origin;
and once in Beaufort, where the primary water source is also the Savannah River.
While all of these cities have a strong vested interest in the safety of the Savannah River Site, Barnwell and Allendale Counties are adjacent to, generally closest downwind from, and always the closest downriver South Carolina communities. The Town of Barnwell is only eight miles from the SRS boundary, the closest county seat to the sprawling complex of nuclear weapons materials processing and cleanup sites.
Allendale County has never been selected for a Board Meeting. Barnwell County has not hosted an SRS CAB meeting since the September, 2000, when the last one occurred at Barnwell State Park—which still boasts a “large meeting facility and five vacation cabins.”
The Board did meet in Barnwell County three times between 1996 and 2000—the same year it also convened at luxurious Kiawah Island. The years 2015 and 2016 marked a sea change in meeting venues, with Board meetings held for a full year (2015) at the New Ellenton Community Center. Two more meetings were held in the small town bordering SRS in 2016, along with a pair of meetings at the nearby Applied Research Center in 2016 and 2017.
But only since July 24, 2017 has a Board meeting convened within fifteen miles of the site boundary, during a meeting in downtown Aiken twelve miles from the site boundary.
During this period meeting venues have been dominated by a rotation of upscale locations: Hyatt House, Sonesta, Double Tree, Crown Plaza, and the Hilton Garden Inns—-with the exception being nearly two years of virtual meetings due to COVID-19 guidelines and restrictions.
SRS CAB MEETINGS July, 2017 to November 2022.
Month/Year
Location
City
July 2017
Applied Research Center
Aiken County, New Ellenton
September 2017
Courtyard Hilton
Charleston, SC
November 2017
Hilton Garden
Augusta, GA
January 2018
Beach House Hotel
Hilton Head Island, SC
March 2018
North Augusta Municipal Ctr
North Augusta, SC
May 2018
Hyatt Regency
Savannah, GA
September 2018
Double Tree Inn
Columbia, SC
November 2018
Partridge Inn
Augusta, GA
January 2019
Sonesta Hotel
Hilton Head, SC
March 2019
Savannah Rapids Pavillion
Martinez, GA
May 2019
Hyatt Regency
Savannah, GA
July 2019
Municipal Building
North Augusta, SC
September 2019
Frances Marion House
Charleston, SC
November 2019
Hyatt House
Augusta, GA
Jan 2020 to Sept 2021
Virtual Meetings
November, 2021
Holiday Inn Beach House
Hilton Head, SC
January 2022
Aiken Municipal Building
Aiken, SC
March 2022
Crown Plaza
North Augusta, SC
May 2022
Columbia Convention Ctr
Columbia, SC
July 2022
Double Tree Hotel
Augusta, GA
September 2022
Embassy Suites-Hilton
Savannah, GA
November 2022
Augusta University
Augusta, GA
SRS CAB MEETINGS July, 2017 to November 2022.
Barnwell and/or Allendale in 2023?
The snubbing of Barnwell and Allendale by the Citizen’s Advisory Board could be ending soon. The issue of a change in venue was raised at the last SRS CAB meeting, convened on July 26-27, 2022, at the Double Tree Inn in West Augusta twenty-five miles upriver and generally upwind from SRS.
At the meeting, I asked SRS officials and the CAB about the absence of Barnwell and Allendale Counties from the Board’s meeting locations and agendas. SRS Public Affairs specialist Amy Boyette informed me, with DOE SRS Manager Michael Budney listening, that Barnwell and Allendale lacked the necessary facilities to host a CAB meeting. I followed up a day later with an email, writing:
“You expressed the opinion that Barnwell and Allendale Counties are not feasible for CAB meetings due to a lack of suitable meeting space and equipment. And Mr Budney was standing there and did not disagree.
Are there any other reasons why full monthly Board meetings are not held in the two counties parochially identified by every SC elected officials at every level as the three most affected by SRS past and present operations?”
Ms. Boyette replied:
We do not have full Board meetings monthly. There are 6 full Board meetings per year. These meetings are of/for the Citizens Advisory Board and they are also open to the public to observe. We have meetings both locally and in downstream communities. When selecting meeting venues, the primary factors, as I told you on Tuesday, are appropriate meeting space (large room, plenty of parking, food options nearby), dependable utilities (reliable WiFi and IT systems that can support virtual meetings/Live streaming, etc) and suitable overnight accommodations for those to have to travel to attend.
That said, your comments have made me want to double check Barnwell and Allendale. It has been a while since we visited those areas in person (we look online every year) to scope out possible venues and accommodations. I have asked my staff to reconsider those areas and determine if holding at least one meeting there is feasible.
Conclusions
The Sonesta Hotel in Hilton Head boasts 23,000 square feet of indoor and outdoor meeting space able to accommodate 1,100 people. But the meeting facilities there and every other venue the Board rents look nearly identical to this SRS CAB meeting scene at the Crown Plaza Hotel in North Augusta in March, 2022.
The SRS CAB has 25 members and a small support staff during meetings. Does the notion that places like Barnwell, Allendale or other small rural communities cannot accomodate such a small contingent reflect an institutional class bias? Or could another issue be that membership on the Savannah River Site Citizen’s Advisory Board presents opportunities to spend some time at government sponsored meetings at posh resorts and upscale hotels?
The Sonesta Resort on Hilton Head Island, scene of the January 2109 CAB Meeting.
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.
