Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chair Chris Verenes Resign
by Don Moniak
December 9, 2022
Keith Wood and Chris Verenes are original members of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), having attended every public meeting since May 20, 2020. Wood was elected Chairman in September 2020, and Verenes was the first and only Vice-Chair. Together with AMDC Treasurer J. David Jameson, they formed the commission’s Executive Committee, a three-person panel that, while ill-defined, functioned as a pre-decisional deliberative body addressing commission business. Along with AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant, they orchestrated much of the effort to pursue the $100 million plus downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment plan known as Project Pascalis.
Chairman Wood was one of two people authorized to sign AMDC checks and negotiate with developers; the other being recently removed AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant. In July 2021, he authored a key letter to City Council requesting $10 million in funding for AMDC purchases of “Parkway District” properties.
On September 29, 2022, following approval of a motion to cancel downtown Aiken’s Redevelopment Plan One and the Purchase and Sale Agreement for AMDC-owned downtown properties between the AMDC and RPM Development Partners, Wood and Verenes issued statements blaming unnamed city staff for misleading the commission during the Project Pascalis procurement process.
Both Wood and Verenes demanded that the truth be made public as to why the project effectively ceased on June 23, 2022; twelve days before a major lawsuit was filed seeking an injunction of the project. Since the Blake et al vs City of Aiken lawsuit was filed, fourteen lawyers from eight different law firms have represented the various city officials and public bodies named as defendants in the suit. As previously reported in Cancelled, Stopped, On Hold, Terminated, or Ongoing, the abundance of legal counsel has led to confusion over the actual project status.
Today, Wood and Verenes emailed resignation letters (1) to Aiken City Council and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. The resignation was confirmed by an unnamed source.
Both commissioners expressed alarm at City Council’s refusal to publicly reveal the reasons for the failure of Project Pascalis, and voiced strong protests against signing a “Joint Defense Agreement” (JDA) that would inhibit “open, frank, and complete information.”
In his resignation letter, Wood also appeared to disagree with the AMDC’s attorney in regard to the JDA drafted prior to a joint, closed-door Executive Session with City Council on November 21, 2022:
“David Morrison, AMDC attorney, working in tandem with Daniel Plyler, City Attorney, prepared and forwarded a Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) for all participants of the meeting to sign prior to our meeting. In our view, the JDA restricts any Commissioner’s ability to disclose information that could be shared with you. Any meeting restricting open, frank, and complete information would be a disservice to City Council, AMDC, and the citizens of Aiken.”
Chris Verenes wrote, in regard to the same issues:
“It is important to note that Mayor Pro Tem Ed Woltz and Councilwoman Lessie Price relayed to me that they were in favor of meeting with no preconditions, restrictions, or legal agreements. The Chairman and I were concerned that the joint defense agreement might limit what we would be allowed to say in a public forum. We determined that we will not agree to any restrictions being placed on us as to what could be disclosed to the public.”
Verenes also referenced a joint email (2) from both he and Chairman Wood, in which they wrote:
“Our recommendation is to have discussions without any predetermined restrictions which may impede the truth. This is based on our belief that the public expects and deserves the highest standard of ethical conduct and transparency from all appointed and elected officials.”
The resignations leave only four AMDC commissioners—David Jameson, Philip Merry, Marty Gillam, and Douglas Slaughter. Since he is in violation of city attendance rules for appointed officials, having missed four of six regular meetings this year, Reverend Slaughter will be automatically removed as a commissioner on January 1, 2023. Even with Slaughter, the AMDC does not have a quorum of members and cannot make decisions or take actions.
The AMDC has not met in a regular public meeting in six months, having cancelled every regularly scheduled meeting since the July 5, 2022 lawsuit. The commission has also refused to allow public inspection of its records, with former Executive Director O’Briant stating in early October that information will be withheld until a judge orders otherwise.
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.
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.
(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.”
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.
