Tag Archives: City Council

City Government, In the Demolition Zone, January 2023

Pascalis Properties on Aiken City Council’s Closed-Door Agenda?

4 Comments

by Don Moniak

January 7, 2022

Aiken City Council is scheduled to meet in closed-door Executive Session prior to its regular public meeting on Monday, January 9, 2022. A “potential purchase of real property located in downtown Aiken” is the first item on the Executive Session agenda. (1)

Based on the following information, the downtown property in question is believed to be the seven properties owned by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) that collectively formed the basis for the commission’s second Project Pascalis effort; and which were referenced in the singular tense as “The Property” in the commission’s cancelled Purchase and Sale Agreement with RPM Development Partners, LLC.

1. For the second consecutive Council meeting, a planned, closed-door Executive Session will feature these identical items:

  • “Potential purchase of real property located in downtown Aiken.
  • A proposed contractual arrangement to lease property in downtown Aiken. “(2)

The previous discussion occurred prior to Council’s December 12, 2022, regular public meeting.

2. According to draft meeting minutes, the following attendees reportedly attended the two-hour long session on December 12th:

  • Councilmembers Kay Brohl, Gail Diggs, Ed Girardeau, Andrea Gregory, Lessie Price and Ed Woltz.
  • City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, City Attorney Gary Smith, City Clark Sara Ridout, Assistant City Manager Mary Tilton, AMDC member David Jameson, Attorney Daniel Plyler, City Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, AMDC Ex-Officio member and Aiken Corporation CEO Buzz Rich; and Dr. Vahid Majidi and Sharon Marra of the Savannah River National Laboratory.

3. Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon recused himself from the December 12th proceeding: 

“Mayor Osbon recused himself from participating in the executive session discussion because the discussion may involve one of his direct economic competitors.”  (Page 7)

Rick Osbon co-owns and operates Osbon Dry Cleaners on Pendleton Street in downtown Aiken. Their only competitor in the downtown area is Warneke’s Cleaners on Newberry Street. Warneke’s Cleaners is on one of seven properties purchased by the AMDC in November, 2021, to become part of the proposed Project Pascalis demolition and redevelopment zone. The properties are owned by the AMDC, but acquired with a $9.6 million grant from City Council from borrowed taxpayer funds.

4. David Jameson resigned from the AMDC two days later, on December 14th, and began his resignation letter by writing:

“Thank you for allowing me to hear the legal briefing concerning the mechanics of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) Monday night. My understanding is that the Commission’s ability to function is being held hostage by our bylaws—essentially the quorum issue. With our current membership of three, we can meet but we cannot act.” 

5. During the public comment period for non-agenda items, Historic Aiken Foundation President Linda Johnson offered the following comments and questions:

“Partly because of some past events, Historic Aiken Foundation is especially interested anytime anything comes up about downtown.  So I understand that buying properties is something that you really have to talk about in executive session, but I was wondering is there anything you can share about what property this is, what you’re planning to do with it, and what’s going on with this potential purchase?” (22:30 mark of Meeting)

Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith—who has apparently chosen to stop recusing himself from the Pascalis process since the reported project “cancellation” by the AMDC— responded:

“The properties are located downtown, that’s really all we can tell you at this point. Before city council can do anything with acquiring the property there would have to be a public discussion. There would have to be a notice given to everybody and so you will get that information if that transaction actually goes forward.”

In response to a related followup question (3), Smith further stated:

I think that’d be fair to say the the transaction is such that all of the parties involved aren’t prepared for the public to be aware of what the transaction is. That’s why City Council is not allowed to discuss it at this point, okay, whereas a year ago both parties were there at the table.”

As described in Jameston’s resignation letter, the AMDC is currently not prepared for the public because it lacks a quorum. Since the AMDC technically owns the properties, City Council might believe the commission must be prepared to act on any sale of the properties.

6. Item #4 under new business for Council’s regular January 9th meeting is the “First Reading of an Ordinance Regarding the Membership of the Municipal Development Commission:”

According to the supporting memorandum from City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh:

“Councilmember Girardeau has asked to bring forth an ordinance amending the membership section, which would have three of the nine-member board be City Council members serving as voting ex-officio members. Six members would continue to be citizens of the City of Aiken appointed by Aiken City Council. For Council consideration is an ordinance amending Section 11-2 of the Aiken City Code regarding the membership of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission.”

Placing three ex-officio voting members from City Council onto the AMDC would provide the necessary quorum for the commission to publicly meet, conduct business, and act to sell the property to the City of Aiken. Whether Council plans to dissolve the commission after such an actios—as suggested in AMDC member Doug Slaughter’s resignation letter—or maintain the latest proposed form of the AMDC is unknown.

The January 9th meeting will be City Council’s the eighth closed-door session (4) involving Project Pascalis since June 1, 2022. These were not all legal briefings. For example, on June 13 Council met with the developers—under the pretext of an Open Meetings exemption—to hear from them as a group for the first time, a lack of governmental oversight identified by Ed Woltz on May 9, 2022:

 “I would like to have a meeting with the builders for the project. Council as a whole has not done that. Some people individually have. The Mayor had spoken to them more than once, but as a Council we have not talked to the builder.”

With the exception of the repeal of the Newberry Street privatization ordinance, Aiken City Council has not held a public discussion regarding the Pascalis project or the AMDC properties since May 9, 2022. Even though it is increasingly evident that transfer of the properties from AMDC control to City of Aiken control is being contemplated and perhaps moving forward, Aiken City Council is choosing to continue its policies of secrecy and obfuscation even as it attempts to clean up after its $100 million plus Pascalis project failed; a failure due in part to a penchant for secrecy.

7:10 p.m. on December 12, 2022 when Aiken City Council closed-door meeting ran late.


For followup story, see January 12, 2023, Aiken City Council Stumbles on AMDC

Footnotes:


(1) The Executive Session Announcement:

2) The “proposed contractual arrangement to lease in downtown Aiken” likely involves a lease of City property to the Savannah River National Laboratory—possibly the former Municipal Building at 214 Park Avenue. This is based on the fact that December 12, 2022, Executive Session attendees included Dr. Vahid Majidi and Sharon Marra, who are the Director and Deputy Director of Operations, respectively, at the lab.

This appears to be the latest step towards an even stronger presence of Savannah River Site contractors in downtown Aiken, this time as part of an “Innovation District.” This began with the AECOM plan, which was referenced in Mayor Rick Osbon’s December 20, 2020 letter to Aiken County Council and the Aiken County legislative delegation. In his letter, Osbon included a $20 million request from Plutonium Settlement funds for an “Innovation District that involves the Department of Energy and USC-Aiken:

The Aiken Innovation and Impact District: The AECOM study released in December discussed catalytic investments to establish an innovative district near USC Aiken. This would be an opportunity to foster the clustering of businesses related to advanced manufacturing, software/ information technology and take advantage of synergies in the region. The district would be mixed use in nature, providing access to retail, dining, housing and other amenities, in support of new research and production facilities operated by the private sector/ universities.

The Aiken Innovation and Impact District would include a partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative, the South Carolina National Guard Dream Port, and USC Aiken. The growth and success of the original partners will create opportunities for new public and private partnerships over time. In a rich, collaborative environment, businesses, entrepreneurs, investors, researchers, students and residents alike would be inspired to connect more, engage more and create more. The vision would be to recharge Aikens economy by attracting technologyand innovation-based companies. $20M is needed.

In December 2021, the AMDC and SRNL began discussions on locations with SRNL for a portion of an “Innovation Park.”

In June 2022, disbursement of the plutonium settlement was finalized and included $20 million for “Offsite Infrastructure SRS/National Laboratory” (Innovation District), and $10 million for the National Guard “Dream Port” cybercommand scheduled to be relocated from Columbia and expanded to network with cyber-defense capabilities at Fort Gordon.

Around the same time, a Ground Lease Survey Appraisal was completed for 214 Park Avenue that determined a long-term ground lease value of $2 million for the property. While the appraisal appears to have been commissioned to determine a price for leasing the facility to Newberry Hall after conversion to a conference center, it also could be applied to any other interested party with $20 million in plutonium funds.

At its last public meeting on June 13, 2022, the AMDC discussed locating the Innovation District downtown. According to the meeting minutes:

“Mr. Jameson stated he is the chairman of the Innovation District Committee. In the last few months the committee has met several times. It was to do research about what an Innovation District could and should look like and to understand how to move forward. He pointed out a request had been made for funds from the Plutonium Settlement to support the Innovation District and $20 million had been allocated for it. He said the committee began the conversations with where should we begin. Where should a building be located? What would make it the most successful? What would be the best location? They talked about the University area and downtown. The conclusion was that downtown Aiken would be the best location for the building. In collaboration with the center at USC-Aiken and the Site, there could be some permanent crew or revolving office crew in the downtown.”

  1. (3) At the 24 minute mark of the meeting, Don Moniak commented: 

“The Freedom of Information Act does say you may release information and you may discuss information in public as well. So what what is the big secret about this particular property, whereas a year ago at this time… there was another piece of property downtown that the city was considering selling. It was the Brinkley building, part of the Old City Hall, and you did meet an executive session to discuss it. But that was on the agenda as well as a Purchase and Sale agreement associated with that. Was it just further was along at that point? Why was that public but this one not public?” 

Gary Smith: “ I think that’d be fair to say the the transaction is such that all of the parties involved aren’t prepared for the public to be aware of what the transaction is. That’s why City Council is not allowed to discuss it at this point, okay, whereas a year ago both parties were there at the table.” 

The parties at the table for the Brinkley building included Smith’s law partner Ray Massey. Smith did not recuse himself from that meeting involving the sale of city property at a financial loss to CTR, LLC, a company represented by, and invested in, by Massey. In the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, this incident is described as follows:

“The CTR Sale was documented in a fully negotiated Purchase and Sale agreement dated December 21, 2021, initialed on every page by, and signed by, Ray Massey and ready for City signatures. The Ordinance had signature blocks for Rick Osbon as Mayor, Gary Smith as City attorney, and Sara Ridout as City Clerk.”

As noted in The Pascalis Attorneys, members of the law firm of Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes were involved in early 2021 with Project Pascalis property acquisition efforts on behalf of Weldon Wyatt’s WTC Investment, LLC; and Ray Massey’s Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC owns property that was involved in both Pascalis efforts.

(4) Aiken City Council has met in closed-door Executive Session to discuss Project Pascalis on the following dates in 2022:

June 13, in a joint session with the AMDC and the Pascalis project developers for two hours.
June 27 for one hour.
July 11 for two hours with Attorney Daniel Plyler to receive legal advice following the filing of the the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit.
October 10 for 1.5 hours to receive legal advice.
October 24 for one hour to receive legal advice.
November 21 for nearly two hours with the AMDC.
December 12 for two hours to discuss “purchase of downtown property” and a lease of property.





“

August 2022, City Government, Money Trails

The City of Aiken’s Mattie C. Hall Property: Another Curious, Questionable Aiken City Property Deal

5 Comments

by Don Moniak
August 6, 2022
(Updated June 29, 2025)

In September 2021 Aiken City Council approved the sale of two undeveloped parcels of city-owned property in Kalmia Hills, running adjacent to the railroad tracks on Norfolk Southern Railroad property and east of its two acre Kalmia Hills City Park. The two parcels totaled four acres and were deeded to the City by the estate of Mattie C. Hall in 1973.  No land or timber appraisal was conducted and the property was not put up for bid. The property was sold to a single offeror, Scott and Adrienne Patterson. Mr. Patterson is a lawyer employed by Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes; which was also the city’s agent for the sale of the property. Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith, who is a partner in Smith, Massey et al, was responsible for the preparation and review of the ordinance and purchase and sale agreement required for approval of the sale. The city sold the properties for $150,000, and today it is divided into four lots being offered for a cumulative $700,000. 

(Update: As reported in The City of Aiken’s Law Firm: “although the sale was approved in September 2021, a title dispute created by a “scrivener’s error” prevented the closing until June 2022. During that time, Mr. Patterson represented the City of Aiken in court proceedings to rectify the title situation. In June 2023, half of the property was sold for $280,000; yielding a $130,000 profit in one year; with the western two-acre parcel still on the market.)

Deja Vu All Over Again


As reported in “How Aiken City Council Got Taken to the Cleaners by the Wyatt Family,” (1) in January, 2020, Aiken City Council approved the sale of property housing its former finance and administration building at 135 Laurens St, SW and parking lot/drive-up at 130 Pendleton St, SW.  The sale was a no-bid deal, pursued by the city when Weldon Wyatt’s WTC Laurens, LLC offered $1.2 million dollars. Before voting to approve the sale for the increased, negotiated price of $1.3 million, Council person Kay Brohl stated that one lesson learned was “that everything we do should go out for bids.” 

A month after the deal was finalized, WTC Laurens sold the 135 Laurens St parcel to SRP Credit Union for $1.3 million.  In May, 2021, WTC Laurens sold the Pendleton Street parcel to R and O, LLC (Agent: Rick Osbon) for $500,000. Mayor Osbon had recused himself during the sale process from November 2019 to January 2020 due to the proximity of his business and property to the city’s property. 

Two months after the Wyatt family realized a $500,000 return on this sale at the City of Aiken’s expense, another sole offer was presented to the Aiken City Council for city property — the Mattie C. Hall parcels.

The Mattie C. Hall Parcels in Kalmia Hills

On July 12, 2021, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh wrote to council in a supporting memorandum: 

Scott and Adrienne Patterson have approached the City about purchasing two parcels owned by the City of Aiken located on Summit Drive and Burgundy Drive. The two parcels are TPN 105-05-15-002 containing 1.9747 acres and TPN 088-08-20-001 containing 2.0348 acres. 

The Pattersons intend to purchase the approximately 4 acres to construct their residence on the property. They have offered $150,000 for the property. After discussion with Parks, Recreation & Tourism Director, Jessica Campbell, we would subdivide and maintain a portion of this property for future parking for the park. 

If Council approves this transaction, it is recommended by staff that the net proceeds from the sale of this property be placed into the General Fund. 

For Council consideration is first reading of an ordinance to sell approximately 4 acres on Summit Drive and Burgundy Drive to Scott and Adrienne Patterson for $150,000. (1) 

The two parcels are within the relatively affluent Kalmia Hills subdivision, extending from the intersection of Summit and Burgundy Drive. The western boundary and part of the northern boundary are bounded by Summit Drive. The rest of northern boundary fronts on Laurel Drive and Highland Park Avenue. All of the land is backed to the south by the railroad, with much of the terrain relatively steep. All of the land is heavily forested with a loblolly and longleaf pine overstory. The tall Kalmia shrubs that give the area its name are scattered throughout the understory. 

The two Mattie C. Hall-Kalmia Hills parcels, approx. 2 acres each, sold by the City in June 2022. Click photos for larger view,

In the July 12, 2021, agenda packet was the proposed ordinance prepared and reviewed, as customary, by City Attorney Gary Smith, who is also a partner in the law firm of Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Maynes. One of the purchasers, Scott Patterson is an attorney in the same law firm. (3) According to his Linked In profile, Mr. Patterson has been an associate lawyer at  Smith, Massey et al since 2008. 

Also in the July 12th agenda packet was the purchase and sale agreement (PSA), also the responsibility of the  City Attorney. The PSA required a $2500 earnest deposit with the “Agent,” Smith, Massey, et al and contained the following disclosure: 

(d) Disclosure Regarding Escrow Agent: Purchaser is aware that Agent serves as counsel to Seller in this and other transactions. Purchaser agrees that the duties of Agent here under are ministerial in nature and shall not disqualify Agent from representation of Seller in connection with this Agreement or any dispute that may arise hereunder.

The minutes of the July 12, 2021 public hearing (4) note that “the Pattersons had reached out to (City Manager Bedenbaugh) some time ago,” and that “the City has owned this property since the early 1970s. The deed basically says the property may be used for residential or recreational purposes.” 

Mr. Bedenbaugh did not disclose that the property had been deeded to the City of Aiken by the estate of Mattie C. Hall (1885-1961). In addition to being one of the original developers of the Kalmia Hills subdivision, Mattie Chafee Hall was a prominent local citizen, antiques dealer, businesswoman and realtor who gave generously to the Aiken community throughout her life. She is perhaps best known for the million dollar trust she left to the Aiken County hospital to fund indigent patient care, her trust ultimately going to a new nursing home for Aiken County — the Mattie C. Hall Nursing Home, (now Pruitt Health) on Laurens Street North. 

Specifically, the deed for the Kalmia Hill parcel from Mattie C. Hall’s estate reads:  

This real estate is conveyed subject to the restrictions that same is sold for recreational use or residential use only and shall not be used for any commercial or industrial purpose.

Click image for larger view.

The only significant issue was raised beforehand by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department, which sought to keep some of the parcel to expand parking at Kalmia Hills Park. The seller and purchaser eventually agreed to the city keeping 0.12 acres for parking purposes. 

No Appraisals, No Bids

Two council members spoke on the matter. Ed Woltz asked if the property had been appraised, and in response, according to the minutes:

Mr. Bedenbaugh stated it is an offer based on the value the Tax Assessor has for the property. The Tax Assessor has it valued at $120,000. The Pattersons offered more than the value listed by the Tax Assessor. He felt the offer was fair.

It is unclear where this figure derived. According to County Assessor records, the appraised property value for the easternmost property in 2020 was $80,000, which rose to $492,500 in the 2021 assessment. (5) The westernmost portion, which is narrower and steeper, has been valued by the assessor at $48,960 since 2019. (6) The rise in value of the eastern parcel may be related to the $210,000 sale in January, 2021 of a nearby 1.6 acre parcel, on Dibble Road on the south side of the Norfolk Southern property and also adjoining the tracks. 

According to the meeting minutes, Council Member Ed Girardeau spoke to these higher land values, stating:

he was very familiar with the property, as he grew up in the area.  He noted the best part of the property is where it is proposed to put the parking lot He pointed out that the property is very thin in the area between Laurel Drive and the railroad track. He pointed out that an area near there flooded in 1969 as there was not proper drainage in the area. He pointed out the area is in a flood zone. Mr. Bedenbaugh stated the Pattersons are aware of  that. Councilman Girardeau stated he had looked at the sale of some lots in the area and some have sold for $160,000 an acre.

In spite of this knowledge that the city was selling its Mattie C. Hall gifted land at one quarter of the values he described, at less than $40,000 per acre,  Girardeau made the original motion to approve the sale.  Council voted unanimously to approve the sale. On September 13, 2021; Council voted unanimously again at the second and final hearing on the sale, following a motion again made by Girardeau and minimal discussion. (8) 

No members of the public spoke at either meeting, and no councilmember suggested the city keep the property for recreational use to compliment adjacent Kalmia Hills Park. 

The city did not close on the sale until June 23, 2022.  On July 1, 2022, the properties were listed by the Carolina Real Estate Company and for sale signs were posted along their length.  

While the land itself is not on the land page of the carolinacompany.com website, it is referenced in numerous real estate sites, including Zillow, Remax, Coldwell Banker, and Weichert.  They all show the two properties have been further subdivided into four properties with a cumulative sale price of $700,000. (See Table 1) 

Table 1: Subdividing a $150,000 sale into $700,000

County Parcel ID MLS #LOT ID ACRESSale Price 
105–05-15-002202155A0.856$150,000
105-02-15-002202156B1.100$150,000
088-08-20-001202157C1.314$200,000
088-08-20-001202159D0.756$200,000
Each listing states “Beautiful lot with mature trees. Build your custom dream home.” 

__________________________

Investigation into the details of the sale, the property appraisal, the “flood plain” claim, and deed restriction continue.  

The Aiken Chronicles appreciates citizen tips, leads and insights into investigations. Information is held in strict confidence. Appreciation is also extended to the hardworking team of proofreaders and fact-checkers. 

FOR REFERENCE

(1) The Cleaners: How the Wyatt Family Took Aiken City Council to the Cleaners. 

The Cleaners: How Aiken City Council Got Taken to the Cleaners by the Wyatt Family

(2) July 12, 2021 Aiken City Council Agenda Packet. Pages 108-115. 

https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=619215&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

(3) https://www.smbgm.com/attorney-profiles/scott-william-patterson/

(4) Meeting Minutes for July 12, 2021, Aiken City Council Meeting: 

https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=785222&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

(5) https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=844&LayerID=15264&PageTypeID=4&PageID=6879&KeyValue=105-05-15-002

(6) https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=844&LayerID=15264&PageTypeID=4&PageID=6879&KeyValue=088-08-20-001

(7) https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=844&LayerID=15264&PageTypeID=4&PageID=6879&KeyValue=105-05-11-001

(8) Meeting Minutes for September 13, 2021, Aiken City Council Meeting: 

https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1574371&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

City Government, July 2022, Laws & Bylaws, Project Pascalis 2022

No Evidence of Intent: The City of Aiken’s Proposal to Change the Law to Fit the AMDC’s Bylaws. 

Leave a comment

The most prominent item on the Aiken City Council’s July 11, 2022 meeting, other than another closed-door executive session regarding Project Pascalis, is a proposed amendment to the ordinance defining and governing the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC). The AMDC is the governmental side of the braintrust behind the $100 million plus project to demolish a substantial portion of downtown Aiken and construct a new hotel, apartment complex, parking garage, retail space, and a conference center. 

The issues surrounding this amendment were first reported in “Reminder of the Day: The AMDC Cites the Law, Then Sets Its Own Rules,” with an updated version posted on July 1st. This account detailed the differences between City of Aiken law and AMDC bylaws, and the city’s contentions that the differences are the result of a “scrivener’s error,” and that City Council’s original intent was to allow membership. 

Reminder of the Day: The AMDC Cites the Law, Then Sets its Own Rules

A review of past city council agendas and minutes reveals no intent to change membership requirements to include non residents who have “vested business interests” in the city. 

The July 11th Hearing 

In Agenda Item #1 of new business for the July 11th meeting is the “First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code (Section 11-2) Regarding Membership of the Municipal Development Commission.” 

The supporting memo from the Aiken City Manager merely states: 

In reviewing our enabling ordinance for the Aiken Municipal Development Commission  [AMDC], we believe that the membership paragraph needs to be updated. The current language states that members will be citizens of the City of Aiken. We propose adding to that “or have vested residential and/or business interests within the Commission’s jurisdictional boundaries. (1) 

City code presently specifies that AMDC members be “citizens of Aiken.” The memorandum contains no discussion of the following facts: 

a. Nonresidents currently are serving on the AMDC and have voted on resolutions that have been forwarded to City Council. This is essentially an amendment to grandfather these members into compliance. 

b. The AMDC’s final bylaws, written and adopted by the AMDC in December 2020, defined membership criteria as “vested residential and/or business interests,” and 18 month has passed since that policy, which was contrary to City code when it was written, was adopted without Council approval. 

c. This is a matter currently identified in the lawsuit filed July 5th seeking an injunction against Project Pascalis 

d. The definition of “vested business interests.

The memo also omits any supporting evidence of past intent by City Council, most likely because none exists. Yet, the city is asserting publicly that a “scrivener’s error” is the source of the problem. If that is the case, it has to present clear and compelling evidence of the original intent. 

The city has not. The proposed amendment, simply put, involves the city changing the law to comply with bylaws that were written and adopted even though they did not comply with to city law. There is no evidence of prior intent, and therefore no evidence of a “scrivener’s error.”  The AMDC should be rewriting its bylaws to comply with the City Council approved ordinance, not vice-versa. 

AMDC Formation and Amendments: 2019-2020

The first reading of the ordinance establishing the AMDC was held on June 10, 2019, and it was the third item (2) of new business that day. In the supporting memorandum for creation of the AMDC, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaught wrote: 

Proposed bylaws are attached at the request of Council as a one page summary of the commission. AMDC, an arm of City Council, will be utilized to facilitate public and private investments which reduce physical and economic blight, foster new business startups and expansions, and increase the availability of decent and affordable housing in the identified area.

The proposed bylaws contained no mention of membership requirements. There was also no discussion of membership requirements during deliberations. Two citizens, Jane Vaughters and Reggie Ebner, raised numerous concerns about the new commission, and no citizens stepped forward in support. 

The ordinance passed its first reading by a vote of 5-1, with only Councilperson Dick Dewar dissenting (Councilperson Gregory was absent). According to the minutes for that meeting, he seconded Ms. Vaughters’ concerns: 

Many of the matters that Ms. Vaughters talked about are listed in Chapter 10, such as borrowing money, issuing bonds, adopting a seal, etc.  (Councilperson Dewar) felt this may be a body of government that he is not sure Aiken needs. He pointed out that the Aiken Corporation is empowered to do what he felt the Redevelopment Commission would do. He said he was confused as to what we would expect the Redevelopment Commission to do that we can’t get done with the Aiken Corporation and the city board structure that we have.”

On August 14 ,2019, the ordinance came up for its second and final reading. It again passed that day by a vote of 6-1. Councilperson Dewar being the sole dissenter, and his concerns were more numerous than at the first hearing, and, according to the minutes, included the following: 

He noted that the first sentence in the ordinance says ‘whereas the staff of the City of Aiken has advised City Council that a blighted area or conservation area exists.’ He said he did not know where the blighted areas is. He felt that was a very general comment to make and it should be specified. He said by adopting this ordinance we would be approving the charter without approving the rules of the charter.

At neither of the hearings was the issue of membership criteria that included only a “vested business interest” ever raised. The only statement about membership at the second and final reading was: 

The proposed commission would consist of nine members,three of whom will be City Council members and six commissioners appointed by City Council to help with economic development. The City Manager would serve as an ex-officio member of the Commission. Bylaws would be drafted by the new commission.

The September 2020 Amendment

The Commission did not meet until May of 2020. During that summer a few council members, most notably Ed Woltz, recused themselves from any commission votes that may come before City Council. This led to an amendment regarding membership that passed a second reading on September 14, 2020. 

This amendment only pertained to the number of voting AMDC members, which was increased to nine, while three City Council memberships were converted to non-voting “ex-officio” status. There was no discussion of residency requirements in the City Manager’s supporting memorandum, and the detailed meeting minutes do not cite any discussion about citizens with “vested business interests’ serving on the commission. 

During the first reading at their August 24, 2020 meeting, council expressed support “to remove the present three Councilmembers from ex officio members, ask the Commission to recommend three members to replace the three Councilmembers, and empower the Commission to be able to amend the bylaws as they see fit.” But no language was added that allowed for a bylaw amendment to automatically trigger an amendment to the ordinance. 

The September 14, 2020 meeting minutes pertaining to amendment reads: 

“(City Manager) Mr. Bedenbaugh stated Council created the Municipal Development Commission in August 2019. The commission has been actively meeting and has made a recommendation to Council to amend its enabling ordinance to allow for a more efficient operation by the board. Specifically,the Commission recommended that its voting membership stay at nine. The current three City Council members would gain ex officio status, which would necessitate three additional appointments to be made.” 

If there is any evidence of past intent, the City of Aiken has yet to locate and present it. 

The “Scrivener’s Error”

The language of the September 14, 2020 amendment is clear in the packet agenda: 

Nine commissioners shall be citizens of the City of Aiken…

The City of Aiken contends a “scrivener’s error” is the cause of the ordinance not reading “vested residential and/or business interests,” but has yet to offer any evidence of council intent. 

The 1996 edition of Barron’s Law Dictionary defined a “scrivener” as “a term, infrequently used in the United States, signifying a writer or scribe, particularly one who draws legal documents.”  The City of Aiken does not have a “scrivener.” The City Attorney is responsible for a range of duties that can be considered analogous to a scrivener, including:

“the city attorney shall prepare and revise ordinances when so requested by any member of the city council.”

Although the term scrivener remains obscure, the “Scrivener’s Error Doctrine” is still a term more widely in use in the legal community.  According to the website lawyer.zone, “Scrivener’s Error doctrine is one that states that when there is a typographical error or a minor mistake, the court can correct the mistake when it’s absolutely clear.”

In a 2016 paper challenging the strictness of this doctrine, Harry Bigelow of the Chicago School of Law wrote, “it is widely accepted that courts may correct legislative drafting mistakes, i.e., so-called scrivener’s errors, if and only if such mistakes are ‘absolutely clear.’” (3) Any reasonable examination of this paper indicates this is a complex issue  that could ultimately be decided by the courts. 

City Council is not a court, and there is no clear mistake that was made during the drafting of the AMDC’s ordinance, or the only amendment to it. The AMDC’s by-laws were finalized three months after the September 2020 membership amendment. While Council did express its support for the AMDC to draft its own by-laws, it did not allow a change in by-laws to trigger a change in the law; and doing so would undermine the entire system of city government and leave the law in the hands of unelected officials. 

References


(1) City of Aiken agenda and meeting minutes can be found at
https://www.cityofaikensc.gov/government/city-council/

(2) The AMDC is currently composed of eight men and one woman. In spite of frequent discussion at its meetings about “what millenials want,” most members are not millennials, and no age criteria was discussed in the context of commission membership requirements. In fact, there were no requirements for membership in the initial proposed ordinance. 

Coincidentally, the second item on the September 14, 2020 council agenda was the “First Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone Property at 828 Richland Avenue W and 159 Morgan Street NW from Office (O) to Planned Commercial (PC) and Approve a Concept Plan.” This is the “old hospital” property and site of the former county administrative complex. 

That plan involved local developer Weldon Wyatt’s proposal to destroy the existing buildings and construct a new hotel, apartment complex, garage, and conference center in its place. That story is discussed in “Reminder of the Day: Project Pascalis and The Wyatt Factor.” https://aikenchronicles.com/2022/06/21/project-pascalis-and-the-wyatt-factor/

The agenda packet that day included an eighteen page submission from Mandy Drumming, a millenial who made the case for restoration of the old hospital instead of demolition. (Pages 270-285) Part of that submission was a copy of the Spring 2019 edition of The Rambler, a publication of the Georgia Historic Trust, titled “Millenials and Preservation.” 
https://www.georgiatrust.org/the-rambler-publication/spring-2019/

(3) https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12504&context=journal_articles

July 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

Project Pascalis and the Plutonium Settlement

Leave a comment

Plutonium Settlement Funds are Not Earmarked for Project Pascalis 

By Don Moniak

Summary: Twenty five million dollars from State of South Carolina Plutonium Settlement funds legislatively allocated to the City of Aiken do not include any reference to Project Pascalis, and are not project specific. Citizens of the City of Aiken have the opportunity to participate in future deliberations regarding final allocation of these funds for redevelopment and investments in “downtown and Northside Aiken.” 

The $600 Million Settlement 

On August 31, 2020, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson announced the largest settlement ever with the federal government. After four years of litigation pertaining to the storage of approximately 9.5 metric tons of surplus military plutonium transferred to the Savannah River Site (SRS) since 2002, a $600 million dollar settlement with the U.S. Department of Energy was reached.(1) 

The settlement was enabled by a minor amendment sponsored by then Representative Lindsey Graham to the 2003 Defense Authorization Act. The amendment mandated the federal government to remove at least one ton of plutonium per year from the Savannah River Site beginning in 2016, or pay fines of up to $160 million per year to the state of South Carolina. 

Neither the amendment nor the settlement addressed the approximately two tons of military plutonium left in storage at SRS after more than three decades of plutonium production work officially ceased in 1990. 

The funds are described as “economic and assistance payments,” but the settlement does not specify any detailed criteria for spending the money. Of the $600 million dollars, lawyers for the state were awarded $75 million by the Attorney General’s office (a controversial decision currently being litigated), leaving $525 million for the South Carolina General Assembly to distribute. In June 2022 the South Carolina General Assembly finalized the distribution of funds within its fiscal year 2023 budget. 

The only line item that pertains to redevelopment in the City of Aiken is $25 million for “downtown and Northside redevelopment,” and Project Pascalis is not specifically identified. This is true in each version of both Senate and House bills during the recent legislative session. The distribution of the funds is now at the discretion of Aiken City Council.  The city’s budget is a matter of public record and its approval involves two public hearings, so citizens will have a say in how the money is spent. 

City officials have implied that $20 million of this money is dedicated to Project Pascalis. For example, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission’s (AMDC) May 2022 paper “Just the Facts: Why Pascalis, how do we pay for it?” In it, the AMDC wrote: 

$525 Million Plutonium Settlement provides once in a lifetime opportunity to invest in concrete project that creates generational prosperity for the City of Aiken. (2) 

The opening statement is misleading, since the next sentence describes a request for:

$20 million in Plutonium funds to directly support Pascalis. That request is being considered by the General Assembly and passage could come as early as June of 2022.

The AMDC Lobbying Efforts: No Requests for Pascalis 

Not only are plutonium settlement funds not specifically dedicated to Project Pascalis in the state budget, there is no evidence the city specified the project in its lobbying efforts to state legislators. 

The Aiken Municipal Development Commission began discussing the settlement funds almost immediately, and the money stayed on the agenda for months. (3) 

Two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the City of Aiken regarding letters pertaining to plutonium settlement fund requests from the city have yielded no documents specifying Project Pascalis as a desired beneficiary of the funds. (4) 

The first letter to county and state officials was mailed only seventeen days later. The September 17th lobbying letter established a theme asserting ownership of the funds by the three counties adjoining SRS while blaming the federal government for violating the public trust: 

The settlement is a result of the failure of the U.S. government to fulfill its obligations to our communities in return for a good faith effort to accept plutonium from across the country.

This statement and others like it were to be repeated until it became accepted as fact, it was not true. Part three of this series will discuss the stand-alone decision in 1997 to store surplus military plutonium at SRS for up to fifty years, and the debate leading up to the settlement. 

The September 17th letter did not identify any funding needs, and in fact stated that “allocation of funds should be objective, not project specific.” 

More specific requests from the AMDC were sent on December 16, 2020 to Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon. Of $95.4 million in requests for various projects, $15 million was requested for downtown and Northside redevelopment and investment. AMDC Chair Keith Wood wrote: 

The AMDC, and others should work to fund and coordinate the acquisition and assembly of land and/ or derelict properties at sufficient scale to be repackaged as available sites for medium-density housing/ mixed-use, mixed-income residential and marketed to the development community for either private sector projects or public-private partnerships where appropriate. These funds would also be available to provide incentives for projects that face a funding delta based on the increased cost of property in the central business district through public participation in the projects to include parking solutions, public utility infrastructure, green space uses such a trails, squares and pocket parks, etc. that can reduce the overall project costs while providing a public benefit. Areas of interest include downtown Aiken ( Hotel Aiken project),Aiken’s Northside (former Say-A-Lot site for grocery), East Aiken (East Richland Avenue) and strengthen connection along Route 1 to 1- 20. Identify potential sites along Route 1 for development. 15 million.

The phrase “Project Pascalis” was never mentioned because the project did not yet exist. The request only identified “areas of interest.” 

Two days later, Mayor Osbon sent a letter to Aiken County Council Chairman Gary Bunker outlining the City of Aiken’s priority wishlist for plutonium funds disbursement. Whereas Osbon expanded the overall list and increased the desired amount to $223 million (6), the request for redevelopment and investment in downtown and the Northside remained at $15 million. Osbon forwarded the exact language of the AMDC for that request. 

No other request letters from the Mayor, City Council, or the AMDC have been identified. As will be discussed in Part 4 of this series, the line item that could involve Project Pascalis has always been more generalist and not project specific. If Project Pascalis is cancelled, that money still remains available for “downtown and northside redevelopment.” 

For information on how the Chamber of Commerce and Nuclear Contractor Executives publicly acknowledged plutonium dangers, see Offsite Insights 2022-2 and Plutonium is not for Amateurs, Part II.

The two articles also form an introduction to “From Plutonium Economy to Plutonium Dump: A History of the Plutonium Settlement,” which is in progress.

In progress: The Plutonium Settlement disbursement debate and final results.

For Reference

(1) The announcement of the settlement is at: 

https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-wilson-announces-largest-single-legal-settlement-in-south-carolina-history/

The seven page settlement is at: 

Click to access South-Carolina-Settlement-Agreement-Final-signed-8-28-20.pdf

(2) https://aikenmdc.org/2022/05/16/just-the-facts-why-pascalis-how-do-we-pay-for-it/

(3) Meeting minutes from AMDC public meetings held from September 2020 to _____, 2021 describe discussions on the matter. (add more here) 

(4) A June 10, 2022 FOIA request asked for 

“All official correspondence between the AMDC and or City of Aiken regarding the plutonium settlement funds. Specifically, and at a mininum, I am requesting the letter from the AMDC “sent to the Governor, the delegation, and other elected officials” referenced in October and November, 2020 AMDC meeting minutes.” 

Twenty one documents were retrieved, of which twenty were duplicates of the September 17, 2020 letter. The city charged $24 for this request, and claimed 1.75 hours of retrieval time was required to locate three letters involving requests for $95 to $223 million dollars from the State of South Carolina. A subsequent appeal to the city manager yielded a fee wavier 

An additional request on June 23 specifically asked for “documentation supporting the following assertions: a. City has requested $20 million in Plutonium funds to directly support Pascalis. That request is being considered by the General Assembly and passage could come as early as June of 2022.” 

This request yielded the same three letters as the previous request, with no new lobbying letters since December 2020. The cost this time was $16 for 1.25 hours of search time, for documentation forming the basis of a one month old AMDC published “fact sheet.” 

(5) )  The remaining $80 million in requests involved $30.4 million for Whiskey Road Corridor, and $50 million for “four strategic and and interrelated steps to ignite an innovation ecosystem in Aiken” in the USC-Aiken vicinity. This included additional funding for two projects already in the planning process, one new vaguely defined initiative, and roadwork: 

$10 million for the “Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative (AMC). 

$15 million for the South Carolina National Guard Cyber Security Dreamport;

$20 million for a new Aiken Innovation and Impact District to work with the AMC and Dreamport

$5 million for widening of University Parkway

(6) Mayor Osbon’s exorbitant request for $223 million of the available $525 million included the “innovation ecosystem” and downtown and northside development requests, but added $124 million for additional portions of the Whiskey Road project. 

July 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

Project Pascalis Lawsuit Alleges an Abundance of Violations of State and Local Law. 

1 Comment

July 5, 2022

by Don Moniak


UPDATES:
August 11, 2022: Answer of Defendant Gary Smith
See also: “The Gary Smith Defense: An Admission, Inconsistencies, and More New Questions Than Answers,” by Donald Moniak

August 15, 2022: Answer on Behalf of Defendants City of Aiken, Osban, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz

August 22, 2022: Defendants’ attorney submits Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order on Behalf of Defendants Obson, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz.

Read full text of lawsuit here:

City of Aiken Filed_Summons_and_ComplaintClick to Read lawsuit

Page One view: Plaintiffs and Defendants in Project Pascalis lawsuit.

Lawyers for nine plaintiffs, including the Historic Aiken Foundation, Green Boundary Foundation and former City Councilperson Dick Dewar, filed a complaint in the Second Judicial Circuit of South Carolina against two dozen City of Aiken officials and a pair of development companies collaborating with the city to demolish and reconstruct a substantial portion of historic, downtown Aiken. 

Project Pascalis rendering

Pages one to thirty-six of the plea assiduously outline the legal basis for their claims, including South Carolina Community Development, Freedom of Information, Ethics and Government Accountability statutes; and City of Aiken zoning ordinances. 

Pages 36 to 90 contain the general factual allegations and provide welcome summertime nonfiction for a majority of Aiken area residents who object to Project Pascalis. Like a good true white collar crime story, the allegations detail sham proceedings, citizens locked out of a distorted and confusing public process, conflict of interest violations from the Mayor to the City Attorney, and city boards that regulate the public while serving the developers they are charged with monitoring.