Recently obtained documents reveal the City of Aiken has declared no insurance value for the historic Hotel Aiken, and is paying an annual insurance premium of only $441 on the hotel. (1) The City of Aiken has provided no reason for the decision to leave the hotel nearly uninsured.
Hotel Aiken: No Value, Barely Insured
The City of Aiken’s Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) purchased seven properties at a cost of $9.5 million in early November, 2021. The purchase was funded by a bond issuance approved by Aiken City Council three months earlier. (2). Two of the properties, the Hotel Aiken and the adjacent Holley House Motel, were vacant at the time of the purchase. The combined purchase price for these two properties was $4.25 million.
Photos from 5-star reviews of Hotel Aiken in 2017
The properties form a substantial portion of the proposed, but evolving, demolition and redevelopment endeavor in downtown Aiken called Project Pascalis. The project is promoted and led by the AMDC, which was formed in 2019 and has no prior, largescale institutional development experience.
After the original developer GAC, LLC (agent: Weldon Wyatt) exited from the project in May, 2021 for unknown reasons, the AMDC eventually selected RPM Development Partners, LLC (agent: Ray Massey) as its replacement in December 2021. The AMDC signed a conditional purchase and sale (PSA) agreement for the seven properties, pending a final master cost-sharing and development agreement. That PSA remains confidential and exempt from a Freedom of Information Act request. The AMDC has stated that it will offer “a discounted price for the property upon which they will build the hotel and apartments.” (3)
A request for proposals (RFP) leading up to RPM’s selection occurred in May, 2021 and was not publicly advertised as required by South Carolina Community Development laws. A legal advertisement for RFP’s was placed ten days after the selection of RPM. As a result, the legitimacy of RPM’s status as the developer has been challenged in court. (4)
The Hotel Aiken was placed on the city’s historic register in 2018. The designation remains despite the city’s Design Review Board (DRB) approval on March 1, 2022 of a demolition application from RPM for the hotel and the adjacent building titled 106 Laurens St, SW. The permission to demolish, approved by a vote of 6-1, is conditional, and demolition will not occur until RPM has a final agreement to purchase the property, has a final master agreement with the AMDC, and final designs are approved by the DRB.
In a document titled “Property Schedule,” attached to the first page of the property declarations portion of the city’s property insurance policy, no value is assigned to the Hotel Aiken. This zero value was assigned months prior to the demolition application being filed.
The annual insurance premium for the hotel is only $441, less than the premium for the average 1200 square foot home. The total insurance value is only $284,060, even though in 2021 the Aiken County Assessor appraised the market value of the land at $562,000 and the hotel improvements at $987,000 for a total appraised market value of $1.549 million.
Another way of looking at the value of the Hotel Aiken is by examining the offers the AMDC received in 2021. According to a redacted review of bidders (5) involved in the May, 2021 RFP process, one developer was rejected for only offering $1 million for the hotel property, described in the review as a “deeply discouted (sic) price.”
Cropped to show $1 million offer
In contrast, the adjacent Holley House motel, which is also vacant and part of the Project Pascalis demolition zone, has an assigned value of $2.25 million and an annual policy payment of $3493. Every other building in the demolition zone also has an insurance value matching the AMDC’s purchase prices. (See Property Declarations Table).
Property Declarations Table
When asked about the lack of insurance value for the Hotel Aiken, city officials declined to comment. The question as to why the AMDC spent more than $2 million on land and improvements, describe a $1 million offer as a “deeply discounted” value, and then chose not to insure the improvements against fire or other losses also remains unanswered.
____________________
Coming Soon: Part 2: Less Protected: A before and after comparison of fire protection programs for downtown AMDC properties.
____________________
(1) A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed on July 11, 2022. The request was for:
“Copies of the Property and Building Insurance Policies for the following AMDC owned properties 121-21-09-001: 106 Laurens St 121-21-09-002 : Hotel Aiken 121-21-08-001 Holley House 121-21-08-002: Taj Restaurant + 121-21-08-003: Old Johnson Drug Store 121-21-08-004: Warneke Cleaners 121-21-08-004: Newberry Hall. These commercial property and building insurance policies should be readily on hand and retrievable within fifteen minutes.”
The City of Aiken responded on July 18 with a $16 charge for 1.25 hours of search and retrieval labor. After receiving payment on July 18th, the city waited until July 21st to release three documents:
The insurance policy is titled “SOUTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE and RISK FINANCING FUND COVERAGE CONTRACT 2022.”
Only a portion of this document, the “property declarations” chapter, was provided in the FOIA response. The city claims that the remaining portions do not apply to AMDC owned properties. Chapters detailing coverage declarations for liability, crime, and casualty coverage were considered unrelated to the request for entire insurance policies.
The issue is presently under appeal to Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh.
A sunny Saturday afternoon in downtown Aiken, July 2022 (Photo courtesy of Michael Aiken)
Three recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the City of Aiken regarding the ongoing downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis yielded either no documents or incomplete documentation. But the paucity of documentation functions, in these cases, as good information shining more bad light on the vagaries of Project Pascalis.
The following information is good to know:
The City of Aiken has not compiled an account of questions and answers from its Project Pascalis public meetings of April 20th, 2022, and one of its meeting transcripts (which it has yet to release) omits all public comment. (1)
An offer was made to purchase the Aiken Antique Mall in March, 2021 as part of a larger land consolidation effort during the earliest stage of project development (2). The Aiken City Attorney’s law firm billed Weldon Wyatt’s investment and development firm WTC, Investments, LLC for the effort.
There is no contract yet between the City of Aiken and Newberry Hall’s operators for the management and operation of the proposed city-owned conference center. (3)
The City’s Listening Skills Are Not on Display
The City of Aiken’s website includes a five year old page titled “City of Aiken Revitalization Project.” This was the “Downtown Renaissance” project that included some elements found in the Project Pascalis proposal, but was more dispersed and did not involve demolishing a substantial portion of downtown Aiken. On that page, the City declared:
Downtown revitalization takes initiative, courage, and vision to look at what makes for a vibrant, walkable, livable center that fosters community vibrancy while creating economic opportunity. Aiken is no different. Our history of downtown revitalization is strong and the City stands ready to face the next chapter of downtown development. (4)
Although the “Downtown Renaissance” plan became mired in controversy and faded into recent history, the city did document citizen concerns in great detail. The revitalization project website features twenty pages of “Questions submitted from the public,” and links to other documents containing more than one hundred pages of comments and questions.
In contrast, the City of Aiken has no similar record of public input for Project Pascalis. The two transcripts from the April 20, 2022 public meetings, when the city promised to have transcripts the next day, are poor and incomplete records of that event:
a. The morning meeting “You Tube” transcript is painfully difficult to read and does not identify speakers; and b. The evening meeting transcript ends when public comment begins.
Until now, no transcript has ever been released to the public.
When asked for a copy of a question and answer document similar to the one found for the “Downtown Renassaince,” the city came up empty. No efforts to document citizen questions and comments has occurred. Listening is not on the city’s agenda for Project Pascalis.
The Antique Mall Was Targeted as Part of the Original Project Pascalis
Aiken Antique Mall, July 2022 (Photo courtesy of Michael Aiken)
The ownership of the Aiken Antique Mall has not changed hands, and there is no proposal to demolish it. But it was part of the aggressive effort to consolidate downtown property ownership to facilitate a major demolition and redevelopment project.
This consolidation effort is encouraged by the city’s “master economic development plan” completed by AECOM corporation in 2021, which cites “fragmented property ownership” as one of the “challenges for large-scale redevelopment.” This “fragmented property ownership” issue was cited by City Council in August, 2021 as a key justification to issue $10 million in bonds for the AMDC to purchase Parkway District properties.
Aiken Antique Mall, July 2022
An offer (or offers) was made on the Aiken Antique Mall, and Weldon Wyatt’s investment and development firms had enough confidence the property would be obtained to include it in the first concept plans completed in April, 2021 by The Boudreaux Group. (5)
In response to a FOIA request for the Antique Mall purchase and sale offer, the City of Aiken declared there is no responsive document. In response to a follow-up question, Aiken Economic Development Director and designated FOIA officer Tim O’Briant wrote:
WTC/GAC made an offer on the referenced property in the same timeframe that the firm(s) secured contracts on the other adjacent parcels. These discussions and agreements were in place prior to them approaching the City/AMDC about a public-private partnership and before the parties entered a cost-sharing agreement.
Since the contract on properties collectively referred to as “the Shah property” was secured on March 2, 2021 and the cost-sharing agreement was finalized on March 23, 2021, an offer on the Antique Mall was made during that period. It was then included in the planning process. Whether the developers had the consent of the owner to include their property in any plans is unknown at this point.
What is known is that the Aiken City Attorney’s law firm billed WTC Investments, LLC for $6,800 to “prepare contracts and negotiate contracts for purchase of hotel, purchase of Mrs. Anderson’s property and purchase of Antique Mall.” (6)
Another unknown is the status of the land consolidation effort that attempted to encompass the Antique Mall. The City of Aiken’s official economic growth strategy discourages “fragmented property ownership patterns.”
Aiken Antique Mall, July 2022 (Photo courtesy of Michael Aiken)
Aiken Antique Mall detail, (Photo courtesy of Donald Moniak)
The Aiken Antique Mall property with its facade of flaking paint could be portrayed as crumbling and blighted by another slick public relations campaign targeting more properties for demolition and redevelopment. What is to stop it?
Newberry Hall: No Contract, Yet.
Newberry Hall is a private business catering to conferences, meetings, and weddings. It is a common venue for groups hosting political leaders. The influential Aiken Republican Club holds its monthly breakfasts there, which in June 2022 featured U.S. Congressman Joe Wilson.
Newberry Hall’s website includes numerous favorable reviews, such as this one from City of Aiken public information officer Chris Ceasar:
Newberry Hall is one of the premiere catering facilities in Aiken County. Whatever your dining pleasure, they can and will accommodate. The staff is very professional. The cuisine is most delectable. The facility is gorgeous. Try Newberry Hall. You will be pleasantly surprised!
Newberry Hall accurately describes its property located at 117 Newberry Street, SW as follows:
Newberry Hall is on a tree-lined and beautifully landscaped city street in the heart of downtown Aiken. Walk through the front doors of Newberry Hall and enter the perfect environment for your social or corporate event.
Newberry Hall, July 2022. (Photo courtesy of Michael Aiken)
In March 2021 the development team led by Weldon Wyatt and Ray Massey sought to demolish this fixture of downtown Aiken life and the surrounding landscaping and replace it with a larger conference center connected to a new hotel. Eventually they signed a contract with the owner, Myrtle Anderson, to purchase the property for $2 million.
This negotiation was no cakewalk. Newberry Hall collectively negotiated favorable terms for the owner/operators of the Newberry Hall business, Patrick and Natalie Carlisle, and an “Agreement for Regarding Lease and Option” was added to the purchase and sale agreement and signed by Ms. Anderson and Weldon Wyatt. This agreement, first finalized on April 15, 2021, was retained by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission after the contracts were transferred to it via the Aiken Chamber of Commerce, which took “assignment” of the property from WTC Investments, LLC on June 3, 2021.
The lease and option agreement included options for Newberry Hall to purchase the new building, operate the new city owned conference center, and be compensated for lost income during the construction period. The agreement states:
C. The development of the Project contemplates that the improvements on the Property would be demolished and replaced with a larger conference center and kitchen and that Carlisle would be compensated for loss of income during interruption of Carlisle’ s business and would lease the replacement conference center and kitchen pursuant to a replacement lease and operating agreement, the terms of which are under discussion but are not finalized (the “Operating Agreement”).
D. Section 5 of the Lease provides Carlisle with a purchase option (the “Option”) that would be triggered by the closing of the Purchase.
E. Anderson and Carlisle desire to that Commission close the Purchase without triggering the Option and have requested that Carlisle grant a one-time waiver of the Option to allow Carlisle and Commission more time to attempt to finalize an Operating Agreement.
In its response to the FOIA request for the contract to operate the future conference center, the The City of Aiken “determined that no contract as described has been considered for approval by Aiken City Council or the AMDC and to date no such instrument has been executed by the parties referenced.”
The city did not provide any more information, yet, no followup questions have been posed. The fact that “no such instrument has been executed” implies that such an instrument is still under negotiation, and would arguably be exempt from disclosure by SC FOIA law due to being a contract under negotiation and not a final product.
Newberry Hall, July 2022. (Photo courtesy of Debbie Traves Brown)
If Project Pascalis survives legal challenges and citizen outcry, downtown Aiken will endure a minimum of three years of major demolition followed by construction. By comparison, reconstruction of The Alley took sixteen months and the Hotel Aiken has been vacant for four years. The Wedding parties, meetings, conferences, breakfasts, and other events routinely held at Newberry Hall will be held elsewhere. How much of a loss to downtown businesses will this inflict?
Commentary
Prying information from any government body that selectively spoon feeds the people its version of the truth can bring to mind former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld’s famous musing about information, a series of concepts so complex that even he tripped over them during later interviews.
.
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
— Donald Rumsfeld
The secrecy and intrigue surrounding the $100 million downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis pales in comparison to the world of international nuclear insecurity that Rumsfeld was in part referring to that day. But the concept of information confusion is relevant to any process plagued by secrecy.
The details of Project Pascalis were kept secret for eight full months in 2021, and the AMDC met in closed door executive session more than fifty percent of the time since the project was announced in March, 2021, primarily to discuss the project. (8)
My wife describes ‘transparency’ as “something you can see through,” while ‘openness’ means “listening to and talking about what people see on the other side.” The City of Aiken likes to talk about being transparent, but continues to disregard the more important character trait of openness during this process.
________________________
(1) A FOIA request was filed on July 6th for “1. A transcript of both April 20, 2022 public “design workshop” meetings held at 214 Park Avenue W. The meetings were also was held on Zoom, and during the 530-700 pm meeting, and during this Zoom call participants were asked if they wanted a transcript of the meeting. 2. All comments and questions submitted to the Zoom moderator. 3. Any compilation of questions and answers by City of Aiken and/or AMDC staff from the April 20, 2022 meetings. If they exist, these documents should be readily available with minimal search time.”
The City responded the same day with three documents:
No compilation of questions and answers from the meetings were provided, and none exist.
(2) A FOIA request was filed on July 11th for a “copy of the purchase (agreement) of the Antique mall referenced in the attached invoice. Since this was a part of the public-private cost sharing agreement between the AMDC and GAC, LLC, this should be available from the City of Aiken.”
The city replied there was no “responsive record,” meaning the record may exist but they do not possess it. The city did confirm “discussions” to purchase the property:
“The City replied determined the invoiced charge was related to initial discussions with the owners of the referenced parcels by GAC, LCC. No agreement was struck, the property was never placed under contract with nor purchased by GAC, LLC, the City of Aiken nor the AMDC. Therefore, there is no responsive record.” (1)
In a subsequent answer to a followup question, the city replied:
“WTC/GAC made an offer on the referenced property in the same timeframe that the firm(s) secured contracts on the other adjacent parcels. These discussions and agreements were in place prior to them approaching the City/AMDC about a public-private partnership and before the parties entered a cost-sharing agreement. Therefore, no documents related to the earlier unsuccessful offer on the referenced property were ever shared with either the City or the AMDC. If such a record were available within the City’s possession and control, I’d be happy to provide it. There simply isn’t one.”
(3) A FOIA request was filed on July 8, 2022 requesting:
“A copy of The contract between the City of Aike or AMDC and the owners and operators of Newberry Hall for Rental and operation of the proposed City of Aiken conference center.”
The city responded:
“The City of Aiken has determined that no contract as described has been considered for approval by Aiken City Council or the AMDC and to date no such instrument has been executed by the parties referenced.”
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.
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.
(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/
The City of Aiken’s Project Pascalis was announced to the general public on March 17, 2021 when the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) authorized “its chairman and the city’s development director to negotiate and execute, when the time comes, a cost-sharing agreement for ‘Project Pascalis,’ a potentially massive commercial-development venture.” (1)
In its announcement, the AMDC wrote it had “identified and recruited a well-capitalized and successful real estate investor interested in partnering and exploring one or more potential commercial development projects.” (2) AMDC officials told the Aiken Standard “a Project Pascalis plan for the public to review and critique is expected within months, after the cost-sharing agreement is finalized and the ball gets rolling;” and AMDC Director Tim O’Briant told the paper, “Transparency is key.”
Between March 16, 2021 and May 10, 2022, the AMDC held seventeen scheduled meetings during which they entered into private, Executive Session sixteen times. In total, the Commission spent just over fifty percent of its time in secret deliberations. Between March 16, 2021 and December 3, 2021, just before the first announcement of a developer, the Commission spent close to two-thirds of its meetings in secret deliberations. Prior to this, the percentage of time spent in Executive Session was just under forty.
While some meetings were held where parts of the project were discussed and debated, public input was not sought until April of this year; with the first meetings involving the entirety of the proposal being held on April 20th. At both meetings, the project presentation lasted for all but fifteen minutes of the scheduled two hours. Public input was abruptly cut off an hour later during the first meeting because of “prior engagements” of the primary developer.
The AMDC and City of Aiken never publicly announced its “well capitalized and successful investor” of 2021. We now know the investor was Weldon Wyatt, whose WTC Investments, LLC (agent: Attorney Ray Massey) had abruptly withdrawn, following months of great fanfare, from a similarly size project at the old Aiken hospital. Not surprisingly, Wyatt and his fellow investors in GAC, LLC and WTC Investments, LLC abruptly dropped out of Project Pascalis two short months later, and the cost sharing agreement was cancelled.(3)
Instead of announcing Wyatt’s second withdrawal in two years from an anticipated public-private partnership with the City of Aiken, the AMDC secretly solicited other developers, without any public notice as required by law. The Aiken Chamber of Commerce, whose President is an AMDC Commissioner, secretly took “assignment” of the seven downtown properties proposed for the project, and for which WTC Investments, LLC had a purchase and sale agreement with the property owners.
Three months later, Aiken City Council approved a $9.6 million bond issuance to finance AMDC property purchases. In early November, 2021, the AMDC finalized those purchases; and the Chamber of Commerce was reimbursed $135,000 of nonrefundable earnest deposits, just as it had reimbursed WTC’s earnest money in May when it took “assignment” of the properties.
Throughout most of 2021, the AMDC and the City of Aiken never publicly disclosed that:
Weldon Wyatt and his fellow investors were involved in Project Pascalis and were planning to demolish the Hotel Aiken and adjacent properties;
the AMDC was involved with negotiations with a second developer
the Chamber of Commerce held nearly $10 million in property while the AMDC sought funding for the properties.
That is how much “Transparency is Key” to the City of Aiken as it pertains to Project Pascalis.
This is “a timeline,” regarding the creation, promotion, and stealth of the $100 million dollar plus downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis from February 2019 through June 2022.
It is not “the timeline.” Due to the City of Aiken’s continued secrecy surrounding key aspects of Project Pascalis, gaps in knowledge remain. For example, the city still refuses to release its full May 2021 solicitation for a Request for Proposals.
Therefore, it is unknown whether any option to renovate the Hotel Aiken was offered to prospective developers; although the evidence to date strongly suggests the only option was demolition. The importance of this key issue cannot be overstated: if the solicitation dictated what the city wanted, then Project Pascalis is a homegrown project and its developers are mere contractors undertaking the wishes of its client.
February 2019
February 1: : Weldon and Tom Wyatt of “Wyatt Development” (which was dissolved in 2013) meets with Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon to discuss his $1.1 million offer to Aiken County to purchase the 9.3 acre “old hospital” and county administrative building property at 828 Richland Avenue, E. for $1.1 million
February 5: Mayor Osbon sends letter to Aiken County Chairman Gary Bunker describing his meeting with Wyatt executives and expressing his support for their vision for the old hospital property.
February 19: WTC Investments, LLC is registered as doing business in South Carolina with the Secretary of State. Attorney Ray Massey is the listed agent. (Unknown: presence of absence of Mr. Massey at February 1 meeting with Mayor.)
April 2019
April 16: WTC Investments, LLC enters into a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) with Aiken County to purchase the “old hospital” property at 828 Richland Avenue, E. for $1.1 million dollars.
WTC manager Tom Wyatt, son of Weldon Wyatt, announces plan to demolish existing historic structures and construct a new hotel, apartment complex, conference center, and parking garage.
August 2019
Ordinance establishing the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) passed by Aiken City Council and governed by South Carolina Community Development Law. Citizens told Commission will enable increased public input and participation in planning process.
November 2019:
Aiken City Council passes rezoning ordinance approving the Wyatts’ concept plan for the old hospital/County complex site.
January 2020
January 12: WTC Attorney Ray Massey informs Aiken County officials they are withdrawing from the old hospital purchase contract.
May 2020
May 26, 2020 First meeting of the AMDC. Commissioners receive tutorials on the Freedom of Information Act, Ethics, and South Carolina Community Development Law. (In the next twenty four months the Commission, always meeting at 3:30 pm, would enter into closed executive sessions forty percent of their meeting time. During the Pascalis planning and negotiations this figure increased to more than sixty percent.)
July 2020
July 15: The Aiken Municipal Development Commission submits a “Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Aiken” to the City of Aiken. The plan does not include properties on Newberry Street currently inhabited by Newberry Hall and Warneke Cleaners. No public hearing is held by the Commission as required by community development law.
August 2020
August 31. Attorney General Alan Wilson announces a $600 million dollar settlement to more than four years of litigation with the Department of Energy regarding storage of surplus nuclear weapons plutonium at the Savannah River Site. Wilson states that after attorney fees of $75 million, $525 million remains for the legislature to allocate.
August 2020. Aiken City Council approves first reading of the downtown redevelopment plan.
September 2020
September 14: Aiken City Council amends the AMDC ordinance, replacing three City Council members with three new voting members, and reclassifying council members as ex-officio. Chamber of Commerce President J. David Jameson, former city councilperson Philip Merry, and Second Baptist Church pastor Douglas Slaughter are added as voting commissioners.
Second reading of minor redevelopment plan passes.
September 2020 to December 2020: AMDC discusses plutonium funding lobbying efforts. A letter requesting $30 million for redevelopment purposes is sent to the legislative delegation and other officials.
January 2021.
January 4: WTC Investments, LLC dissolves.
Unknown date in early 2021: WTC Investments, LLC signs contract to purchase Hotel Aiken, and the adjacent motel, 106 Laurens Street, the former Johnson Drug Store, and Warneke Cleaners from Shah Investments and other Shah family holdings.
March 2021:
March 15: Royal J. Robbins and Garnett Family Holdings sell 210 The Alley to Aiken Alley Holdings LLC for $2,025,000. Ray Massey is agent for Aiken Holdings LLC. (This property was adjacent to the original Project Pascalis footprint, but is now within it).
March 18, 2021: AMDC first announces the existence of Project Pascalis. City of Aiken Development Director Tim O’Briant tells the Aiken Standard “Transparency is key” and promises more pubic information within a few months. (Although details are not released, even the initial plan was to demolish Hotel Aiken and surrounding properties and construct a new hotel, apartments, parking garage, and conference center complex similar to that originally proposed at 828 Richland Ave. E, the old hospital).
O’Briant and Chair Keith Wood authorized by the Commission to execute an agreement with an unnamed, “experienced and well-capitalized” private developer that was “recruited and identified” by the AMDC. (public learns in 2022 that developer was Weldon Wyatt’s GAC LLC; and only in the November 4, 2021 meeting minutes is it revealed that WTC, Investments, LLC was involved with property purchases).
April 2021
April 13: Aiken Standard reports AMDC meeting behind closed doors to discuss Project Pascalis, indicating it involves downtown properties.
April 15: WTC Investments, LLC signs purchase and sale agreement with Newberry Hall property owner Myrtle Anderson to buy the property for $2 million. Modified lease agreement provides Newberry Hall business operators options to negotiate repurchase the new building, operate the new conference center, and receive compensation for lost income during construction stages.
Vampire Penguin opens for business at 106 Laurens Street, while planning to demolish the building proceeds in secrecy.
May 2021:
May 5: WTC Investments, LLC re-registered to do business in South Carolina. Agent: Attorney Ray Massey.
May ?? 2021. WTC Investments, LLC withdraws from its contracts to purchase downtown properties. The Chamber of Commerce takes “assignment” of the property contracts while the AMDC seeks funding to purchase them on behalf of the city. This all occurs behind closed doors.
May 19, 2021. The AMDC sends solicitations for Requests for Proposals to continue the new hotel/apartments/garage/conference center project to select developers. In the solicitation, the AMDC offers to privatize a part of Newberry Street. (The entire solicitation remains secret to this day, withheld under a FOIA exemption by the City of Aiken, despite fact that FOIA clearly states the city “may” release the documents. The AMDC does not deny the solicitation is only for demolition, not renovation of Hotel Aiken and surrounding properties.)
June 2021
June 8: Longtime State Farm agent Joseph Harrison sells his office property at 121 Newberry Street SW—adjacent to Newberry Hall—to Aiken Alley Holdings LLC (Ray Massey, agent) for $675,000.
July 2021:
July 12, 2021. AMDC Chair Keith Wood sends letter requesting $10 million in city funds from Aiken City Council to purchase “Parkway area properties” between Morgan and Williamsburg Street.
August 2021
August 25: City of Aiken approves $10 million in funding for the AMDC to purchase properties in the “Parkway District” bounded by Morgan Street, Hampton Avenue, Park Avenue, and Beaufort Street. Exact properties remain unspecified.
September 2021
September 20, 2021: AMDC announces it will conduct a fact finding trip to review the redevelopment of downtown Florence.
September , 2021: AMDC and several officials, joined by Attorney Ray Massey and representatives of Rainesco hold a “public meeting “ at a Florence restaurant. Meeting minutes are noticeably short.
October 2021
October , 2021. RPM Development Partners, LLC registers with the SC Secretary of State. Agent: Ray Massey. Key Players: Rainesco and Lat Purser (RPM likely to represent Raines, Purser, and Massey). Story not reported.
October , 2021: City of Aiken signs contract with Attorney Gary Pope for assistance with legal counsel. (This agreement cited in May 2021 as evidence of City Attorney Gary Smith’s “recusal” from all things Pascalis, but no such recusal is in document).
November 2021
November 5: In an Aiken Standard article, Development Director O’Briant again emphasized the need for transparency, and stated the AMDC would soon have a website to share information.
November 6: Project Pascalis is discussed at a Design Review Board meeting. Responding to a question about the future of Hotel Aiken, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh states a decision is still pending.
November 9: AMDC announces the purchase of several downtown properties for a total of $9.5 million, including Newberry Hall and Warneke Cleaners. The information is shared on the AMDC’s website, aikenmdc.org:
Aiken Standard fails to report involvement of the Chamber of Commerce.
According to County Records and the AMDC report, the purchases were:
106 Laurens St SW for $1 Million from Shah Enterprises.
235 Richland Ave (Hotel Aiken) and 112 Bee Lane/219 Richland Ave (The motel portion of Hotel Aiken) for $4.25 million from Historic Hospitality LLC (which had “purchased” the hotel in 2017 from Shah Enterprises for $5).
211 Richland Ave West, 203 Richland Ave West, and 113 Newberry Street (Warneke Cleaners) for $2.25 million from S & N Hospitality LLC (which had purchased the properties in 2018 for $ 1 million from Myrtle Anderson).
111 Newberry Street (Newberry Hall) for $2 million from Myrtle Anderson.
December 2021
December 3, 2021. RPM Development Partners announced as Project Pascalis developer. Purchase and Sale agreement made between RPM . Aiken Standard reports that AMDC owned properties scheduled to be “razed.” (Document released in April 2021 shows that one developer rejected in part for only offering $1 million for Hotel Aiken).
December 13 and 20; 2021. AMDC advertises for Requests for Proposals for Project Pascalis, as required by community development law, but after choosing a developer.
December 26-December 31: At the urging of the AMDC, Rainesco CEO Grey Raines hosts five private meetings organized by Aiken Chamber of Commerce President and AMDC Commissioner J. David Jameson. AMDC Director Tim O’Briant attends every meeting with Commissioner Jameston. (City of Aiken denies the meetings qualify under Open Meetings clause of FOIA).
January 2022
January 4: : Rainesco engineers conduct structural assessment of Hotel Aiken, even though decision to demolish building was made behind closed doors in early 2021.
January 22: Aiken Standard reports that “CTR, LLC, a group of local investors led by attorney Ray Massey, has offered $800,000” for two city-owned properties: the east half of the 214 Park Avenue municipal building and the parking lot across from the Hotel Aiken. Council meets in Executive Session to discuss the offer, no results are reported. Attorney Massey’s law partner, City Attorney Gary Smith, does not recuse himself from the proceedings.
February 2022
Feburary 17: DRB tours Hotel Aiken during a “special work session.”
March 2022
March 1: DRB approves demolition of Hotel Aiken and 106 Laurens Street by a vote of 6-1. Vice-Chair Lucy Knowles casts sole dissenting vote. (Councilperson Andrea Gregory withdraws support for Ms. Knowles within a month of the vote, and nominates non-resident Laura Blessing to the Board to replace Ms. Knowles at the end of her term).
March 28: Ten months after AMDC offered part of Newberry Street to interested developers, Aiken City Council conducts first public hearing (reading) of ordinance to privatize 0.6 acres of Newberry Street, in exchange for 123 Newberry St. SW and parking area behind 210 The Alley. Council unanimously approves first reading of ordinance despite nearly 100 percent of comments being against the proposal. City Attorney Gary Smith acts in usual parliamentarian role.
April 2022
April 15: Aiken Standard reports unilateral AMDC decision to repurpose soon to be vacated 214 Park Avenue municipal building into the new conference center. Tim O’Briant credits DRB Chairman McDonald Law with the suggestion. (Mr. Law later denies this was an “ex-parte” communication that violates FOIA Open Meetings law). Aiken County Chair Gary Bunker expresses concern about stalled negotiations with city to utilize the building for office space for county judicial functions.
April 20: AMDC holds first public meetings to discuss entirety of Project Pascalis. RPM Development Partners, LLC and City contractors devote 85% of the scheduled meeting time to presentations before accepting a single comment or question. Public comments at the first meeting is suspended after an hour due to “prior engagements” of Raines representatives. Two AMDC Commissioners, Keith Wood and Chris Verenes, speak in favor of the project without disclosing their affiliation.
Attorney Gary Pope sits at a city meeting for the first time, in place of City Attorney Gary Smith. Mr. Pope offers the information that Mr. Smith called him at “an early point in the project” to recused himself; but provides no date. (No written recusal documentation is offered in response to subsequent FOIA requests).
May 2022
May 9: Aiken City Council votes 6-1 on second reading 6-1 to approve Newberry StreetOrdinance, with councilperson Ed Woltz the lone dissenting vote. Among other falsehoods, Councilperson Kay Brohl supports her yes vote by describing The Alley as an unlively place prior to the city’s 2016 renovation. AMDC Commissioner Philip Merry speaks in favor of the proposal without revealing his affiliation. Attorney Gary Pope sits in place of City Attorney Gary Smith.
May 10: Lawsuit filed by area resident and Aiken property owner Drew Johnson documenting conflict of interest violations by City Attorney Gary Smith due to the role of his law partner Ray Massey in Project Pascalis. (In subsequent response, defendants do not deny the allegations but call for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).
May 11, 2022: Formation of the Do It Right! Alliance is announced, with the goal of preserving historic properties and holding city officials accountable to the law.
May 15: AMDC releases “Just the Facts…,” revealing its intent to resell city properties to developers at a discounted price.
June 2022
June 7, 2022: Aiken Downtown Development Association sponsors public “design workshop” to solicit comments on modified design of Hotel Aiken facade. AMDC Director Tim O’Briant tells WJBF News in Augusta that appraisals were unnecessary because the property is like gold.
June 21, 2022. Design Review Board holds “design workshop.” Attendees not told until beginning of the meeting of a no public comment policy. City officials summon a police offer
June 24, 2022: City of Aiken posts 45 notices announcing DRB public hearing on proposed demolition of Newberry Hall, Warneke Cleaners, Motel portion of Hotel Aiken, Johnson Drug Store, Taj Aiken Restaurant, and adjacent businesses.
June 27: Historical Aiken Foundation, which is identified as a key city partner in its strategic development plan, releases fact sheet documenting concerns that support its opposition to Project Pascalis.
